Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Manchester Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th August, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. PANCRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Major BARNETT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether further representations have been made to him with reference to the application of a responsible body of traders for leave to register the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce as an association not for profit and limited by guarantee without the word "Limited" in its Title; and, if so, whether he will now reconsider his decision on the subject?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. The multiplication of Chambers of Commerce for the purpose of representing commercial interests in limited areas would, in my opinion, weaken the representation of commercial interests as a whole, and I do not therefore think it desirable to grant a licence for the registration of the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce with limited liability without the word "Limited."

Major BARNETT: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMAN GOODS.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether imports of German toys, as well as of toys which, though coming through neutral countries, are undoubtedly of German origin, are steadily increasing; whether the official statements of the values of such toys have been founded on English values or on the current value of the German mark; and whether, in view of the necessity for safeguarding this trade, which employs so large a number of disabled soldiers and sailors, he will
now consider the prohibition for at least two years of the importation of such toys as may reasonably be presumed to be of German origin?

Sir A. GEDDES: The value of toys and games imported from Germany was substantially greater in November than October. The value of toys and games imported from all other countries was less in November than October; it is, however, impossible to say what proportion of them may be of German origin. As declarations of value are made on a C.I.F. basis, the current value of the mark is presumably taken in making such declaration. I am not prepared at present to adopt the course suggested in the last part of the question as the need has not yet arisen, but I may point out that it is with a view to having powers to cope with the sort of situation which may arise in this trade that the Imports and Exports Bill has been introduced.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether all these toys and other things imported have to bear the German trade mark?

Sir A. GEDDES: Not each individual article. It is at present under the Merchandise Marks Act, and there is a Committee sitting now to consider whether that Act should be amended.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that English toy manufacturers have, directly after Xmas, or in the beginning of the new year, to prepare for toys for next Xmas?

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the total value of these imports?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have a figure in my mind which I think is approximately right, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to know, and would put down a question, I will give him the figures.

Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that there is an enormous increase since September in the importation of these German goods?

Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, yes; there was only £7 worth in September.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that imports in November came to no less than £51,800, and that they were three times as much as in October?

Sir A. GEDDES: That may be so. That is not the figure I have in my mind—about three-fifths of that.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that toys now are so dear that poor people cannot buy them?

Sir A. GEDDES: There are toys and toys.

Major GREAME: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that manicure scissors made in Germany are being sold in large quantities in London at a wholesale price of 18s. 6d. per dozen while the wholesale price of similar scissors made in Sheffield is 39s. per dozen; and whether, in view of this instance of the effect of the German Exchange, any action will be taken to check the continued importation of these articles at a price with which the British manufacturers cannot compete?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question; but I also understand that the supplies of these scissors are very short.

Mr. BRIGGS: May I call attention to the fact that the manufacturers are so engaged that if the suggestion in the question were adopted, it would mean taxing the consumer without benefiting production?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir; not only that, but the Sheffield people are doing extraordinarily well in the way of scissors.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODED MINES, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. SHORT: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any contributions in money or materials have been made by the State to the Staffordshire coal-owners whose mines have been flooded or endangered by flooding?

Sir A. GEDDES: Some pumps have been installed by the Controller of Coal Mines, but it is not anticipated that any expense will fall ultimately on public funds.

Mr. SHORT: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of pits in the Tipton area closed down or impaired as a result of flooding?

Sir A. GEDDES: Twelve, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

WAGONS AND LOCOMOTIVES.

Mr. DOYLE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to stimulate the building of railway locomotives and wagons with a view to reducing the congestion of the various railway systems; and how many locomotives and wagons are turned out per week?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. The position in regard to the construction of locomotives does not call for any special stimulus. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport dealt fully with the wagon position in his statement on Wednesday last, and I would refer the hon. Member to the Report, which is now available.

Sir A. YEO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the challenge in the papers addressed to Government Departments with regard to locomotives and trucks cannot be taken up?

Major -General Sir NEWTON MOORE: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the fact that the shortage of railway wagons is having a detrimental effect on the industry of the country, and that the railways are continually pressing for the delivery of wagon scantlings, some of which have been produced during the last two or three years in Australia in execution of orders already in hand for the English railways, he will impress upon the Ministry of Shipping the necessity for allocating tonnage for this purpose; whether the Australian Government have already brought before this Government the necessity that exists for securing freight for timber from Western Australia; and if he is aware that, as a result of the congested state of the saw mills and wharves, many ex-soldiers of the Australian Imperial Force previously employed in the timber industry have been unable to be put back on to their old jobs?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson): I have been asked to reply. Representations have been made to the Shipping Controller as to the desirability of providing tonnage for the shipment of this timber, but it is contrary to the policy
of the Ministry of Shipping to provide space for other than Government cargo. It is open to the shippers of this timber to charter for their requirements on the world's market.

Sir N. MOORE: As the Government are now controlling the railways is not the question of the shortage of wagons a matter affecting the Government Department?

Colonel WILSON: If representations are made to my right hon. Friend for any essential commodity every consideration will be given to them. With regard to the shipping of timber, I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that he might approach the Australian authorities in order that they might consider the possibility of utilising the Commonwealth Line of steamers for this purpose.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 31 and 32.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will agree to the appointment of an independent chartered accountant to investigate the cost of the manufacture in railway workshops of wagons referred to in his recent statement;
(2) if he will furnish particulars of his recent statement of the cost of manufacture of railway wagons in railway workshops showing against each item the total expended on materials, on labour, and the amount allowed for establishment or overhead charges, for profit, and for national taxation?

Mr. A. NEAL: In reply to these questions my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is prepared to appoint an independent chartered accountant to investigate the cost of manufacture of wagons, both of selected representative railway workshops and of outside wagon builders, provided the latter agree.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Member also have an independent accountant to examine the cost of these railway wagons which are being made in Government Departments?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it proposed to delay the transport trade of this country while these investigations are going on?

Mr. NEAL: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Will he give an undertaking that if private wagons are ordered and built they will not be pooled?

Mr. NEAL: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I wish to know whether an independent accountant will be appointed to examine the cost?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of the question.

CRINAN CANAL.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that as long ago as 1909 the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways reported that a strong case had been made out for an improved communication across the Mull of Kintyre, Argyllshire, capable of taking the largest ships that ply between Glasgow and the Western Highlands and Islands with a reasonable margin for probable future developments in their dimensions; whether, in view of this and the even greater necessity which exists to-day for the improvement of steamer communication between Glasgow and the Western Highlands and Islands, with the object of a quicker and cheaper conveyance of goods and passengers from and to Glasgow, tending towards the greater and speedier development of the Western Highlands and Islands, for increasing the fish supplies, and for the purpose of reducing the distance and enabling steamers to proceed in all weathers, he will consider the desirability of immediately arranging a scheme to widen and deepen the Crinan Canal so as to allow steamers of at least 1,000 tons burthen to pass through it?

Mr. NEAL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, a detailed survey of the present conditions of the Crinan Canal is now being undertaken by this Ministry, in order that a decision may be arrived at as to which, if any, of the following policies should be adopted, namely, to repair the present canal, to improve and extend it, or to construct a new canal.

Dr. MURRAY: Pending the completion of this investigation, will the Minister of Transport see to it that the Treasury does not ruin this fishing industry by continuing
the reduction of steamers; and is he aware that within the last three weeks a reduction of one-half has been made?

Mr. NEAL: I will convey the question of the hon. Gentleman to the Minister of Transport.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be possible to use for this communication some of the seaworthy trawlers, instead of having heavy ships, until sufficient traffic arose to justify the employment of the heavy steamers?

Mr. NEAL: I could not answer that without notice.

MOTOR LORRIES.

Mr. FORREST: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport how, in view of the shortcomings of motor-lorry transport, he proposes to deal with the still-continuing congestion at the docks?

Mr. NEAL: I am unable to add to the very full statement which my right hon Friend the Minister of Transport made to Members of this House on Wednesday last regarding the congestion at docks, and the position of railways which reacts on the docks.

Sir A. YEO: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many of the lorries in the docks have never done a day's work since they were put there?

Mr. NEAL: I am not aware—

Sir A. YEO: Then look into it!

Mr. BILLING: Does not the mistake lie in the administration of the lorries rather than in the lorries themselves [...] Would the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting the service out to public tender?

Mr. NEAL: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said here on Friday that the lorry question was unsatisfactory, and that the auxiliary lorries were to be withdrawn from all except two ports.

DUBLIN AND ARMAGH (TRAIN SERVICE).

Mr. LONSDALE: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Armagh Urban District Council has passed a resolution protesting against the inefficient train service maintained between Dublin and Armagh, and asking that third-class accommodation should be provided on the 7.25 a.m. train from Dublin,
or that a connection with Armagh at Goraghwood should be given by the 9 a.m. train from Dublin; and if he will represent to the Irish Railway Executive that these reasonable concessions should be granted?

Mr. NEAL: I have seen a copy of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. I understand the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland will, as from to-day, provide facilities for third class passengers to travel to Dundalk by the 7.25 a.m. train from Dublin, making connections at Dundalk and Goraghwood for Armagh, arriving at the last named place at 10.10 a.m. This arrangement will be continued pending the restoration of the Goraghwood to Armagh connection with the 9 a.m. train from Dublin.

PORT OF LIVERPOOL (CONGESTION).

Mr. HOUSTON: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the congestion which has prevailed in the port of Liverpool for a long period; that at times there have been as many as fifty steamers waiting for discharging berths in the docks, and that the usual number waiting daily for berths is about thirty; that the quays, warehouses, and cold storage are blocked with commodities, including food, controlled by the Government, and that this congestion is largely due to ineffective railway service and shortage of wagons; and if he will state what measures are being taken to relieve this congestion and bring about a normal state of affairs?

Mr. NEAL: I am aware that there has been congestion in the Liverpool Docks for a long period, but, according to my information, the figures quoted by the hon. Member are somewhat exaggerated. The situation at Liverpool has recently shown substantial improvement, and the port is getting a fair share of the wagons available, but I would point out that the congestion is due in a greater degree to shortage of water-borne facilities. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon Friend the Minister of Transport made last Wednesday to Members of this House.

Mr. HOUSTON: Can I rely upon the hon. Gentleman using his energy and driving force to keep his chief up to the mark; and can he say whether the offer made by Mr. Dudley Docker to build 500
wagons per week, at a less cost than the Government can turn them out, will be accepted?

Mr. NEAL: I am sure my driving force does not need to be directed against my right hon. Friend, with regard to the latter statement, or by my hon. Friend. I may say that correspondence is proceeding, and I do not think I can add anything further.

Sir F. HALL: Will my hon. Friend consider the advisability of circulating the important speech made by the Minister last week?

Mr. NEAL: It is available in the Vote Office now. If there is a general wish for distribution, certainly that can be done.

NATIONAL WAGES BOARD.

Mr. FORREST: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to include representatives of the distributing trades among the four members of the public who will sit on the Railway Advisory Committee?

Colonel NEWMAN: 35.
asked whether it is intended that the interests of the travelling public are to be represented on the proposed National Wages Board by the Co-operative Union; whether a definite alliance exists for political and economic questions between the trades union and co-operative movements; whether it is intended that the four representatives of users of railways shall consist of the allied trades union and co-operative interest and representatives of commerce only; and will he say why representation has been denied to the travelling public?

Mr. NEAL: Four representatives of the users of the railways are to be included in this board as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport explained in answer to a question on Monday last. They are to be nominated respectively by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, the Co-operative Union, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, and the Federation of British Industries.
The first two bodies may, I think, be taken as representing the relatively large number of railway users in the less wealthy classes of the community, and the other two bodies, who will nominate after consultation with other large organisations, as representing other classes who are
smaller in number, but pay a relatively high proportion of railway charges. The composition of the board has been agreed with the railway companies and the men's unions, and the Minister does not see his way to enlarge it.

RAILWAY STRIKE (COST).

Mr. A. SHORT: 27.
asked whether in the statement that is being prepared by the Government giving the cost to the country of the recent railway strike, he will include under separate headings the cost involved in preparing, printing, and distributing the various leaflets, posters, and advertisements to the Press which purported to set forth the Government view on the situation, giving the numbers issued in each case?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The cost of publicity and propaganda, as already stated, is £32,657. I do not think that it would be worth while to split this sum up under separate headings.

NAVY AND ARMY OFFICERS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Colonel YATE: 22.
asked whether, in considering the question of the permission granted to officers of the Army and Navy when in uniform to travel first class at second-class fares on production of the requisite form authorising them to do so, he will take into consideration the entirely different and unsettled conditions under which these officers are serving compared with the more settled lives of the civil population, and that he will not deprive these officers of this small concession so long as the railways are under Government control?

Mr. NEAL: This question is one primarily for the War Office, and I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will kindly put down a question on the subject addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has the Department had representations made in favour of terminating this concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. NEAL: Communications are passing between my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject.

COAL SHORTAGE.

Colonel DU PRE: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that three mills of Jackson's Millboard and Paper Company, Limited, Bourne End, Bucks, will be compelled to close this week unless they can obtain delivery of coal; whether the Stanton Company, Pleasley Colliery, from whom this company obtain coal, refuse to supply on the ground that the railway companies do not clear the trucks; whether he will give instructions for at least twelve trucks to be cleared at the Pleasley Colliery and dispatched to this firm immediately?

Mr. NEAL: I am not aware of the position indicated in the first sentence, but a. restriction which circumstances made it necessary to place temporarily on the route followed by this coal has now been removed, and traffic is moving freely.

PASSENGER FARES AND GOODS RATES.

Mr. GILBERT: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether railway passenger fares and goods rates have been increased in the following countries: France, Belgium, Italy, Holland, and Germany; and if he can say approximately what the increases have been as compared with the 50 per cent. on passenger fares in this country?

Mr. NEAL: The passenger fares and freight charges, both in the countries named and in other countries, have increased during the War, and the increases range from 25 to 100 per cent.

CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY.

Mr. GILBERT: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that some of the platforms on the City and South London Tube Railway are still constructed of wood; and whether, in the interest of public safety, he can call on the tube company to reconstruct these platforms in some non-inflammable material?

Mr. NEAL: I am aware that wooden platforms exist on the older sections of this railway. These will be reconstructed in non-inflammable material in connection with the pending widening of the tunnels.

SCOTTISH SEED POTATOES.

Mr. GARDINER: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that wagons of Scottish seed potatoes are in some cases
taking three weeks and over to reach English buyers; and, as these goods are high-priced and perishable, will he arrange that such undue delay will cease?

Mr. NEAL: If the hon. Member will furnish instances of the delays complained of they shall be investigated.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (RAILWAY STOCK).

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if it has been decided to construct locomotives at Woolwich Arsenal; and if the locomotives constructed there are for use on railways in this country or whether it is the intention of the Government to enter into competition with private firms manufacturing locomotives in this country for orders in the various markets of the world?

THE PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Perhaps I may be permitted to thank hon. Members for their courtesy in allowing me to postpone my questions until to-day, owing to the presence of the Allied representatives here last week.
An order to construct 100 locomotives was placed on 24th November at Woolwich Arsenal. The locomotives ordered are for use on railways in this country.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he made a statement last Monday night to a delegation stating that there was a shortage of boilermakers, and that it was stated yesterday by one of the Members for Glasgow that there were 100 boilermakers there who would come to Woolwich Arsenal to-morrow?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I am very glad to hear it, because that is one of the difficulties.

Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no plant at the Arsenal for the construction of these locomotives?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I am fully aware that it will be necessary to add some, at any rate, in order to make the plant effective for the purpose.

RAILWAY WORKERS (WAGES AND TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Sir F. HALL: 66.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the statement by an official of the National Union of Railwaymen that there had been
serious delay in the negotiations with regard to railway workers' wages, but that a further offer from the Government was now under consideration; if he will state whether it is expected that the negotiations will be concluded before Christmas; and whether the House will be afforded an opportunity of considering any suggested settlement before completion if its terms are such as to prejudice the interests of the travelling public in securing a reduction of the present excess charge of 50 per cent. over the statutory maximum of 1d. a mile, in view of the great hardship thereby caused to all classes who are not exempted, like railwaymen and their families, from paying fares?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I am fully aware that the negotiations referred to have occupied a long time, but, having regard to the complexities of the matters involved, I do not think that unavoidable delay has occurred. As regards the latter part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I would refer him to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division on the 8th of December by the Minister of Transport, when he promised to make a statement at the earliest moment possible. I cannot undertake that the settlement of the matters under consideration will be postponed until its terms have been considered by the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that the railwaymen and their families travel free. Tickets are issued to them under certain conditions, at reduced fares, and the 50 per cent. increase applies to these as well as to the ordinary tickets.

Oral Answers to Questions — WRECKS (DAMAGE TO FISHING GEAR).

Colonel BURN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take immediate steps to replace the gas buoy which was placed to mark the wreck of the "Empress of India" before the War, but which has been removed?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I have been asked to answer this question. I am advised that this wreck does not constitute a danger to surface navigation, and that this light buoy was placed solely for the benefit of fishermen. It was removed in May, 1915, for the
period of the War, and the question of replacing it is now under consideration at the Admiralty.

Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that wreck was sunk by the orders of the Admiralty in the best part of the fishing ground, that a great deal of fishing gear has been lost, and that it is vitally necessary to have a gas buoy there, especially in the winter?

Mr. LONG: No, Sir; I cannot admit all the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend. That is not the only wreck in the neighbourhood by any means. The question of light buoys for wrecks is a very serious one, which we are now considering. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can establish the fact that the danger to fishing is due to that particular wreck, as there are four more close by.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY (INVESTED CAPITAL).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 11.
asked the President of the Board or Trade if he will state the amount of capital invested in and the capital expenditure incurred in connection with the coal mining industry during the years ended 30th November, 1913, 1914, and 1919, respectively?

Sir A. GEDDES: I regret that I have not the information which would enable me to reply to this question.

ANTHRACITE (SHORTAGE).

Mr. ROWLANDS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience being caused by the great shortage of supply of anthracite coal in the London district; and will he take steps to assist the consumers to secure the delivery of some anthracite coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that a shortage of supplies of anthracite is still being experienced in the London district in spite of the fact that additional quantities have recently been brought in by sea. The shortage is due to inadequate rail transport facilities from South Wales. Further efforts are being made to relieve the situation by sea-borne deliveries.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the shortage in the West of England, which is very near to South Wales?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir; there is some shortage in Devonshire, not a general shortage. The Severn Tunnel is the bottleneck of railway transport, and owing to the increased number of trains the difficulty of getting them through has greatly increased. We are doing everything we can to ease the traffic.

Sir F. HALL: Have not a large number of people in London bought stoves to burn anthracite in response to the request of the Board of Trade? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these people are bitterly complaining that they cannot get the anthracite?

Sir A. GEDDES: I realise their difficulty, and I quite understand the reason for their complaints. We have done everything we can to get the anthracite round by sea. We have got certain quantities, and we are getting more. But it is very difficult suddenly to change the stream through which any product flows.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Is there any chance of increasing the supply? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts outside London people desire to buy this coal for other purposes; many want it for their glass-houses, and the want of it is stopping the food supply?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir; I do realise that; I have reason to, because the question of anthracite has been very prominently before us for some time. There are great, very great, difficulties in getting it by rail, and what we have been able to get by sea has been snapped up as soon as it arrived.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the last district meeting of the miners on Saturday complaints were made that the miners, in some cases, are unable to work more than three days a week, owing to the lack of transport facilities; and is it not possible to remedy that?

Sir A. GEDDES: Questions of transport facilities no longer fall under the Board of Trade, but the Ministry of Transport, which is doing everything it possibly can to get the anthracite away. But there are great difficulties in connection with the matter.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable quantity is being shipped to France; and if he can get it to Paris, why not to London? Why should the coal go to Paris and Londoners be left to starve?

Sir A. GEDDES: France has to get a certain amount, of course; after all, we cannot refuse to give France coal. There are, too, other qualities of coal coming into London besides anthracite.

Major BARNETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. brother the Minister of Transport in regard to the provision of increased transport facilities?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have on several occasions made representations to the Minister of Transport—quite strong ones.

PULVERISED COAL.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any action is being taken to develop the use of pulverised coal for smelting and power purposes; is he aware that the use of pulverised coal is spreading rapidly in the United States and that the smelting works of the Steel Trust use this method only; if poor coal and coke and small coal can all be used by this process; and if there is, approximately, a saving of from 25 per cent to 30 per cent. in its use?

Sir A. GEDDES: Considerable development is taking place in the use of pulverised coal for smelting and power purposes in this country as well as in the United States. I am unable to say whether the saving is as high as that suggested in the last part of the question.

Sir A. FELL: Is the Government considering the question of making available all their information in regard to this most important subject?

Sir A. GEDDES: I quite agree as to the importance of it. We are having a great many observations made as to the present composition of pulverised coal. As soon as we have got a satisfactory basis to work upon we shall take action.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Is not a great deal of the difficulty in the way of the use of this small coal owing to the fact of the increased prices being all at a flat rate small coal cannot be used profitably?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is to a certain extent perfectly true; that is one of the things that I informed the House a fortnight ago we were reviewing. That, however, is not the main difficulty, which is to find out the best way of using pulverised coal which is rather different from small coal.

COAL MINES (NATIONAL CONTROL).

Sir F. HALL: 63.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government intend to introduce legislation with the object of further increasing national control of the coal mines, beyond the partial control now in force; and, if so, will he state when such legislation will be introduced, and whether as a result private ownership of the coal mines will be abolished?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject on the 18th August last.

Sir F. HALL: Is there no alteration of the circumstances since that date.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOP EXTRACT COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 13 and 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) to whom was paid the proceeds (£2,050) of the sale of the assets of the Hop Extract Company, Limited; whether Mr. James Fabian, the official receiver, advanced his private money to meet the liabilities of the company; if so, whether such practice was in accordance with the usual procedure;
(2) whether he is aware that Mr. James Fabian, official receiver of the Hop Extract Company, Limited, in a sworn affidavit in July, 1917, in support of an application for leave to sell the plant and assets of the Hop Extract Company, Limited, stated that losses were made and liabilities incurred; whether he will state who made the losses and by whom the heavy liabilities were incurred as stated therein; whether Mr. Fabian gave a written or oral guarantee that he would return to the solicitors of Miss Lilian Scott Troy, an American citizen, her twenty £100 debentures with blank transfer on condition that she did not oppose the sale of the Hop Extract Company,
Limited, at a Court held in June, 1917; and whether he will order these said debentures to be returned to her?

Sir A. GEDDES: Mr. James Fabian is not an Official Receiver, but, as I informed the hon. Member on the 24th November in answer to his previous question, Mr. James Fabian was, on the application of Miss Lilian Scott Troy, appointed by the Court Receiver for the holders of the 1st Mortgage Debentures of the Hop Extract Company, Limited. The assets of the company were dealt with by Mr. James Fabian under the direction of the Court, and the Board of Trade have no information as to the matters referred to, nor have they jurisdiction to take any action.

Sir F. HALL: Could the right hon. Gentleman not obtain that information? Is it not in the archives of the Board of Trade?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, it is not in the Board of Trade archives. If it existed, it would be in the archives of the Treasury, and before I answered the question I inquired of that Department and they have not got it.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps in order that the house may have this information, as it is of the atmost importance?

Sir A. GEDDES: It would require a new Act of Parliament to get the information.

Sir F. HALL: Why?

Sir A. GEDDES: Because there are no powers to get it at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his promised Bill to amend the Profiteering Act is to be introduced before the prorogation?

Sir A. GEDDES: I fear that it will not be possible to introduce the amending Bill before the prorogation, but I propose to introduce a very short measure to continue the Act for a sufficient period to enable the House fully to consider next Session the question of amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACCESS BY MEMBERS)

Commander Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport if unrestricted access to and from the House of Commons has to be assured to Members of Parliament; and, if so, whether the police are empowered to prevent Members of Parliament proceeding to and from the House during the Session?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. At the request of the London Traffic Advisory Committee an experiment is being carried out at Parliament Square in the hope of speeding up traffic there. The police are fully cognisant of their duties under the Sessional Order and are doing their best to facilitate the access of Members to the Houses of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR SERVICE (RETIREMENT).

Captain HACKING: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that an Order in Council is a provision of law, and that Section 4 of the Consular Service Order in Council of 1916 empowers Consular officers at that date in the service to remain in the service till the age of seventy years, unless they can be shown to be incompetent, and that the Civil Service Order in Council of 1910 conserves for Civil servants then in the service this right, privilege, and exemption, he will state under what authority he can call upon a Consular officer who is fully competent for the performance of his duties, who is under sixty-five years of age, and who has been in the Consular Service previous to 1896, to retire?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade—Development and Intelligence): There is no Consular Service Order in Council of 1916. If the Consular Service Order in Council of 6th March, 1896, is meant, Section 4 of that Order lays down that a Consular officer appointed before that date must retire at seventy, and officers appointed after that date at sixty-five. The Order in Council of 1910 confirms this, but neither of these Orders limits the power of the Secretary of State
to retire a Consular officer at any time, as explained in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member of 26th November.

Captain HACKING: What is the value of an Order in Council if it can be upset at the whim of a Government Department?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that no Order in Council has been upset, but the Secretary of State has the right to retire a Consular officer at any time. I explained the matter fully in my last answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Captain HACKING: In the face of an Order in Council?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No. It is based on the right of the Secretary of State acting under the Sovereign to do this very serious duty within his own discretion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT (PEACE NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. LUNN: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representative at Copenhagen has received from M. Litvinoff, on behalf of the Russian Soviet Government, an official proposal to the British Government or to the Governments of the Allies to open negotiations for peace; and whether this proposal has been transmitted to the British Government?

Mr. NEWBOULD: 79.
asked the Prime Minister whether an offer of peace has been made on behalf of the Soviet Government by M. Litvinoff to the representatives of the Allied Governments at Copenhagen; whether these terms have been communicated to His Majesty's Government; and, if so, what answer has been given?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. C. Harms-worth): His Majesty's representative at Copenhagen received a letter from M. Litvinoff, but, as he is not authorised to receive any communications from this source, it was returned unopened. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If His Majesty's representative at Copenhagen is not authorised to receive any communications from Litvinoff, how are the Soviet authorities to approach us with offers of peace, and is it our policy to reject his offers without even examining them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot add anything to the reply I have given.

Mr. SWAN: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the seventh All-Russian Congress of Soviets which expresses once more Soviet Russia's desire for peace, and officially and directly proposes to all the Allied Governments the opening of negotiations for peace; and whether the Government will now act on these official and direct proposals from the Russian Soviet Government?

THE PRIME MINISTER: We have only received the report of Lenin's speech, which has reached us in a very mutilated and unintelligible form.

Mr. SWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an endeavour to get that speech in its complete form, or in an intelligent form, so that we may understand what the proposals are?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I have no means of securing a copy of that speech.

Mr. BILLING: In order to avoid all these questions, will not the right hon. Gentleman make a statement that it is not the intention of the British Government to have any negotiations with the Soviet Government?

Mr. LITVINOFF.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that M. Litvinoff is reported as endeavouring to introduce preliminaries for the Treaty of Peace; and whether definite instructions have been given to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) that he is on no account to enter into discussion upon any question whatever other than that concerning the exchange of prisoners?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Has attention been given to the statement of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) and reported in the papers—

THE PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the report.

Mr. HOGGE: As the reply in both cases is in the negative—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is in the affirmative"] If is is in the affirmative, then, will my right hon. Friend inform the House whether the Government are taking any further steps to deal with these negotiations. Is he aware that, so far as the House and the country are concerned, the sooner we make peace with Russia the better?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether the economic distress in Central and Eastern Europe is partly due to the War, or state of war, existing along all the borders of the former Russian empire; whether His Majestys' Government have received an offer of peace from the de facto Government in Moscow, or have reason to believe that that Government is willing to conclude peace; whether the de facto Government at Moscow is in a stronger position, militarily, than at this time last year; and what action is contemplated by the Government?

THE PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of the question, the anarchy in Russia is, of course, one of the causes of the distress in Central Europe; the answer to the second part of the question is that no such offer has been received and that I have no means of knowing what is in the mind of the Bolshevik Government. As regards the relative position of the forces in Russia there are many different opinions, and I hesitate to express mine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other day the proposals which M. Litvinoff handed to the British representative at Copenhagen were handed back to him without being opened?

THE PRIME MINISTER: That does not in the least conflict with the answer I have given.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take some means to get knowledge of these negotiations? What is the use of a responsible Minister like M. Lit-
vinoff handing these to the choice of my right hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Leeds—if he is not to take the trouble to inquire what they are?

THE PRIME MINISTER: If the Soviet authorities in Russia want to make peace they must make it with the people with whom they are at war—with General Denikin, General Koltchak, and others. They must make peace amongst themselves first.

Captain REDMOND: Make peace in Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALLHOLDERS, DURHAM.

Mr. SWAN: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the situation of certain smallholders in Woodlands, county Durham, as regards the annual charge known as free farm rent; and whether he will make inquiries into the facts?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am informed that there are no small holdings in this district provided by either the Bard or the local authority, and I have received no information with regard to any other holdings. If the hon. Member will furnish me with further particulars I will have inquiries made and communicate with him on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPULSORY PLOUGHING (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).

Captain BROWN: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the weekly newspapers in which the draft Regulations terminating claims for loss due to compulsory ploughing were advertised are not read by 1 per cent. of the farmers affected in the North of England, and in view of the fact that the one insertion in the "Newcastle Journal" was not prominently placed, and is, indeed, not read by all farmers, he can now reconsider his decision, and accept claims that were late in being sent in?

Sir ARTHUR BOSCAWEN: I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 19th November. The Board have no power to admit claims which were sent in after the prescribed date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how soon the Government will be able to release cake and feeding stuffs for cattle?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. All descriptions of feeding cakes and meals may be freely purchased. The only form of control now in existence is a system by which the sales of feeding cakes and meals are licensed by an association of the traders acting in co-operation with, and under the supervision of, the Ministry of Food, for the purpose of eliminating speculators and limiting prices. No restrictions are imposed on the freedom of farmers to purchase feeding cakes and meals as, and where they please, for their own use.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

UNFULFILLED CONTRACTS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. SHORT: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, since the Armistice, any contributions have been paid or are due to be paid to certain firms because of the absence of a break clause in their contracts; and, if so, whether he will state the nature and total of such contribution?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Owing to the length of the answer, my hon. Friend the financial Secretary is circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the statement referred to:
With regard to War Contracts for Munitions placed with home manufacturers, only two claims amounting to £92,300, due to the absence of a break clause have been put forward, and these are still under consideration. In at least one of these cases it is probable that supplies would not have been obtained if the break clause had been insisted upon.
Since the Armistice a certain number of contracts for aircraft supplies, which were not subject to break clauses, were cancelled owing to the curtailment of the aircraft programme. The liquidation of these will involve compensation to an amount not yet finally settled.
In the case of one group of contracts placed overseas, through the agency of Colonial and other Governments, for the whole Empire supply of wolfram, the producers refused to accept the break clause. This entailed additional expenditure estimated at £450,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUSINESS PREMISES (EXCESSIVE RENTS).

Lieut. - Colonel D A L R Y M P L E WHITE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether instances have been brought to his notice of landlords demanding from tenants of shops and business premises, on extension of lease, rents four or five times higher than the rents which these have hitherto been paying; whether such premises are sometimes sold over the head of the tenant without the latter having had an opportunity of offering for the same; and whether he will introduce legislation to secure some form of arbitration in such cases?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of introducing legislation to deal with this grievance will be considered. Meanwhile particulars of cases of hardships should be forwarded to me.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also see, where shopkeepers and others are making ten or twelve times the profits that they made before the War, that the public are in some way protected?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST (BRITISH ADMINISTRATION).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to take any steps to carry out the proposal standing on the Order Paper (Notices of Motions for which no days have been fixed) in the names of the hon. Members for Stafford (Captain Ormsby-Gore) and the Horsham Division of Sussex (Earl Winterton) with regard to the formation of a separate Department to deal with the supervision of British administration in the Near and Middle East, and with the formation of a single interchangeable British Civil Service in connection with all Arabic-speaking countries where Great Britain is called upon to provide administrative assistance?

THE PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to take any steps for the future administration of the countries in the Near and Middle East which are already, or are likely to be, placed under the control of Great Britain until the Peace with Turkey has been concluded and the Mandates signed. But the matter is already under consideration.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it true that Mesopotamia is to be transferred from the India Office to the Foreign Office?

THE PRIME MINISTER: No; that is not so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SEAMEN (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT).

Mr. HOUSTON: 48.
asked the. Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to the losses of British merchant vessels during the War, many British seamen are unable to find employment; and whether, in view of the fact that these men ran great risks and endured many hardships by reason of the enemy's submarines, he can see his way to put them on the same terms as ex-Service men in the matter of unemployment pay?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I recognise the great services rendered by merchant seamen and the exceptional perils they faced for their country during the War. The exceptional character of these services undoubtedly entitles them to the privileges of ex-Service men. They will, therefore, be placed in the same category in respect of unemployment pay. I desire to add that the increased amount of tonnage which is in course of completion will, I hope, rapidly increase the amount of employment open to these men.

Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men who have served in the Merchant Service are not regarded in the same way as men who have served in the Navy, so far as appointments by the Civil Service Commissioners are concerned?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of a rather important question of that kind.

Captain REDMOND: If I bring particular instances to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he take them into consideration?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I should certainly do so, because these men are entitled to every consideration?

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a merchant seaman who was injured during the War, even when in an Admiralty ship, is not entitled to the same disability pension as an ex-Service man?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Yes, my attention was called to it the other day. I certainly think that it is a subject to be inquired into, and I have been in communication with the Board of Trade on the point.

Sir J BUTCHER: Is it not one of the points that the Pensions Committee might legitimately deal with by way of recommendation?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I will have that question looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR GRAVES (HEADSTONES).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is part of the policy of the Government only to allow tombstones according to a sealed pattern to be put up to our soldiers buried in France?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the strong feeling which has been aroused amongst the relatives of those who fell in France by the action of the Graves Committee in insisting that there should be absolute uniformity in the memorials erected in the cemeteries under their management?

Major HENNESSY: 76.
asked the Prime Minister why, in cases where the relatives so wish, the gravestones over the fallen in France should not be in the shape of a cross, provided the height and breadth of the cross is not in excess of the prescribed measurements?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. The Imperial War Graves Commission, which, besides representatives of the British Government, includes representatives of the other Governments of the Empire, have adopted designs of regimental headstones for all war graves. These headstones for practical reasons are necessarily uniform in outline and size, but otherwise vary in
many ways to meet the wishes of the regiments and individuals. Full information on this subject will be found in the pamphlet, "Graves of the Fallen," copies of which were sent to all Members of both Houses of Parliament in August last.
The Imperial War Graves Commission have for some time past been in communication with Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who represents in this matter the views of those who desire that headstones of other designs should be permitted. Lord Balfour submitted an alternative cruciform design of headstone, which was, however, found not to be suitable either from an artistic or a practical point of view. The Commission explained the objections to him and have invited him to submit a fresh cruciform design which will not be open to the same objections and will not involve a departure from the principle of equality of treatment for all war graves. I should explain that there is no question of the symbol of the cross not appearing on the headstone. I will arrange to have models of both stones put in the Tea Room.

Lord R. CECIL: Does not my right hon. Friend see that this a question in which the relatives ought to be primarily considered, and that the dictation of artists and architects and that kind of person as to what is proper and right is utterly improper?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot quite accept that view. I think that the general appearance of the great war cemetery—

Lord R. CECIL: No, no !

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am entitled to express an opinion, and I think that it will be found to have some supporters. The general appearance of the great war cemeteries must be considered, and, when it is borne in mind and the principle of equality of treatment is also observed, it will be found that the limitations within which changes are possible are not very great or numerous, but I will arrange for the Lord Balfour of Burleigh headstone to be put in the Tea Room and at the same time the one decided upon by the Imperial War Graves Commission, and Members will see for themselves the difficulties attendant upon departures from these proposals.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that an opportunity of discussing this matter is given to the House? I
can assure him that the deepest feeling is aroused on this matter, which his reply will not tend to soothe.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Major GREAME: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to relieve distress in the winter months, the Government will carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions that outdoor relief or home assistance should not be a disqualification for the receipt of a pension?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the straits to which many old age pensioners are reduced owing to the high cost of living; and whether the Government can now state their policy with regard to an increase of pensions to these deserving persons?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Owing to the important international conferences held in London during the past week the Government have not been able to give the necessary consideration to this question, and as the decision may involve heavy additional burdens on the taxpayer, it has to be considered with great care.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to give this matter practical consideration before Christmas, considering the suffering that the delay is causing to these poor people?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I expect to be able to give an answer before the House rises. We have already given a good deal of attention to the matter, but all the recommendations that have been made involve very heavy additions on the taxpayer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the decision is come to, will the increase, if any, be made retrospective, owing to the unavoidable delay caused by the Allied Council meeting in London?

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a single taxpayer who will object to giving the old age pensioners another 2s. 6d. per week? There are not a dozen people in the country who would object.

THE PRIME MINISTER: No; I am perfectly certain that no one will object if we
can afford it. There are so many claims upon the consideration of the taxpayer that the best thing that we can do is to choose between them and decide what we are able to do and what we cannot afford to do.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give preference to the old British poor, a preference rather than the various foreign charities to which the Government are subscribing?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what the hon. Member means.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are giving £1 for every £1 subscribed to various charities being raised in this country for Austria?

THE PRIME MINISTER: That is not a relevant consideration. It is a question of restoring the peace of Europe, and we are closely concerned in that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the relations between Roumania and the other Allies?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Roumania acceded in Paris to the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Bulgaria, and signed the Treaty protecting the rights of minorities in Roumanian territory. The signature of the Roumanian Government was given with that of the other Allied and Associated Goverments to the Treaty with Germany at Versailles on the 28th June. The Roumanian Government are following the advice of the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference in withdrawing their troops from Hungary, where Sir George Clerk's intervention as the Envoy of the Supreme Council has been instrumental in establishing a Government representative of the whole Hungarian people. The settlement of these questions in this manner has established the relations between Roumania and the other Allied and Associated Powers on a satisfactory basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

STAFF SALARIES.

Brigadier - General CROFT: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on a certain colonel in receipt of £350 a year in the Establishment Department of the Ministry of Munitions relinquishing his appointment a successor was appointed at £365 per annum who was already drawing £1,000 a year from another Government Department, and that on his discovering that his personal assistant was receiving £750 a year from the Ministry and another £700 from another Government Department, the matter was regularised by his salary being immediately raised to £800 a year in order that he should receive more. than his personal assistant; and, if so, under what circumstances these two officials were permitted to draw from public funds £3,250 a year for work that, as in the case of the colonel, many an ex-Service man would be glad to do for £350 per annum?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to answer this question. In view of the length of this answer, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the reply circulated:
The post referred to in the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is a temporary one, which normally carries a salary of £800 per annum, and the allowances of £350 and £365 were paid by the Ministry to and accepted by the officials in question on the clear understanding that those rates were nominal only. The second holder of the post was a retired Indian Civil servant, and the sum of £1,000 per annum was his pension from Indian funds earned by long service. The salary paid by the Ministry to the personal assistant, who is an Indian Civil servant on the active list, was £350 per annum only, in addition to which he received £500 per annum, the minimum allowance paid by the Government of India to officals of his standing when absent in this country. This officer if employed on deputation at the India Office would ordinarily receive pay at the rate of £1,175.
The decision to allow a salary of £800 per annum in order to retain for a short period, now finished, the services of the superior officer was approved by the Ministry, and was not affected by the
salary paid to the personal assistant; and the total sum drawn from the British Exchequer by these two officers was £1,150 per annum only.

MINISTRY (CONTINUANCE).

Major GLYN: 69.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state for how much longer it is anticipated that the question of maintaining the Ministry of Munitions as a Ministry of Supply will remain Undecided; whether the careful examination that is now being given to the subject includes a scrutiny of the causes that led to fresh work being imposed upon the Ministry of Munitions by other Government Departments; and whether he will state what Government Departments have, in fact, delegated certain contracting functions to the Ministry of Munitions since 31st March last, in spite of retaining the responsibility for the employment and efficiency when in use of such material?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on Thursday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister when the vacancies in the offices of the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Financial Secretary to the War Office will be filled?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I regret I have been unable to announce a decision yet, but it will be made known before the House rises for the holidays.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN DEBT TO FRANCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether any application has been received from the French Government inviting Great Britain to guarantee the payment of the whole or any part of the debt due by Germany to France under the Treaty of Peace; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this matter?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The reply is in the negative. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. HOGGE: 61.
asked the Prime Minister what are the powers and duties of the Minister of Health and the Paymaster-General, respectively, with regard to housing?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The Minister of Health is, of course, the Minister solely responsible for housing in England and Wales. The Paymaster-General has assisted the Minister of Health so far as may be necessary as, for example, by answering questions on his behalf, and otherwise has given assistance to the Department on the London Housing Board and in other ways.

Mr. HOGGE: Has he any administrative duties?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL RATES (INCREASE).

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the increases in local rates all over the country, and particularly in Scotland, owing to the recent Education Act; and whether the Government propose to deal with the question of the incidence of local rates and with the relations of local rating and Imperial taxation?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I can add nothing to the replies which were given by the Secretary for Scotland to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Bedwelty on the 17th November and 2nd December, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Mr. HOGGE: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether the pledge which he gave on 16th April, 1918, with reference to the promised Irish Home Rule Bill, that the Government would resign if it failed to pass both Houses, will apply to the Bill for the better government of Ireland which he will shortly introduce?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I must ask the hon. Member to await my statement on Monday.

Mr. HOGGE: Has the pledge already given not yet fallen due? I am referring to
the pledge appearing in the OFFICIAL REPORTS, and given during the Debates on the Military Service Bill, and I ask does it still hold good?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I can make no statement on this subject, but I have a statement to make on the next question in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. HOGGE: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Bill for the better government of Ireland will be introduced before the Recess?

Captain W. BENN: 73.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the Irish Self-government Bill; and how many stages of it will be taken this Session?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Owing to the preoccupation of the Government over preparations for and the discussions at the series of international conferences just concluded, I am afraid I cannot make a statement on the Irish proposals of the Government this week, but hope to be in a position to do so on Monday next. As the House rises on Tuesday for some weeks and no further progress could possibly be made with a Bill this Session, the Government thought it would conduce to more effective progress with this troubled problem if their proposals were placed now in outline before the country with a view to the introduction of the measure early next Session.

Mr. HOGGE: Is there no question of the introduction of the Bill and carrying it over to next Session? Is it not to be introduced? Is there to be no Second Reading?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I have already said so.

Captain BENN: Is it the intention of the Government to continue military repression in Ireland?

THE PRIME MINISTER: It is the intention of the Government to maintain law and order?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: On what Motion will the right hon. Gentleman's proposals be introduced on Monday?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Possibly on a Motion for Adjournment, but I cannot say definitely.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make definite proposals next Monday? Is that his intention?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I propose to make definite proposals and outline the scheme.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that is treating this House and Ireland fairly—to submit then a scheme for the future government of Ireland when he has allocated to-morrow—a day in the busy end of the Session—for educational proposals which will be wholly revolutionary for that country? Does not the introduction of the Education Bill tomorrow prove that this is not a serious proposal?

Sir E. CARSON: Is not the question of education for more important than the question of Home Rule?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) not aware that the more you educate the Irish people the greater rebels they make?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT MEASURES (CARRYING OVER).

Mr. FORREST: 67.
asked the Prime Minister the number of Government measures which it is hoped to carry over by Resolution to the next Session?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY AND PEACE TERMS.

Mr. FORREST: 68.
asked the Prime Minister when the Conference in Paris expects to present to Turkey the Allied terms of peace; and how long, according to existing expectations, it will be necessary to retain in the French Capital the various Plenipotentiaries now engaged there?

THE PRIME MINISTER: It is our hope that before long the Allied Powers may be able to proceed with the discussions of peace terms with Turkey. It is intended to close the present session of the Peace Conference with as little delay as possible.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the Government are not anxious to bring about peace with Turkey because when that peace comes Home Rule comes into operation in Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (DISTURBANCES).

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the extent and origin of the disturbances in Trinidad and Tobago?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): I received on the 6th December a telegram from the Governor of Trinidad, dated the 4th December, reporting that during the three preceding days there had been disturbances in Port of Spain, originating with a strike of stevedores, and that the mob had compelled the closing of the shops and commercial establishments and the suspension of traffic in the business quarter of the town. Other messages indicate that strikes and disturbances have occurred in the interior of the Colony and in Tobago.
The Governor has reported that the strike of stevedores has been settled by the grant of an advance of wages which has satisfied them, and I am happy to be able to state that recent messages indicate that the situation is well in hand both in Trinidad and Tobago. The latest message describes the situation as much easier. Indeed, the conditions in Port of Spain are said to be normal.
The official reports contain no reference to any attack on Government buildings. Valuable assistance was rendered by His Majesty's ship "Calcutta," which is remaining in Trinidad waters for the present.
I regret to have to add that two men, apparently rioters, are reported to have been killed, one in Tobago and one in the interior of Trinidad.
It is, of course, far too soon to form any definite opinion as to the causes of the disturbances, but there are indications that the increased cost of living has given rise to widespread dissatisfaction. I anticipate receiving a full report from the Governor in due course.

Major-General Sir J. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the activities of a gentleman named the Rev. Mr. Hercules had a great deal to do with the unrest in the West Indies?

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are all these stevedores negroes?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I understand the stevedores are negroes, but I have no information to indicate how far it is true that the anti-white movement which certain agitators have been fomenting in the West Indies was the cause of this outbreak.

Captain REDMOND: Is it proposed to introduce a mode of permit order in Trinidad similar to that in operation at present in Ireland to put down these troubles?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE REPORTS.

Sir A. FELL: 72.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to communicate the decision of the Government on the question of the Channel Tunnel and the deposit of the Bill which is necessary to enable it to come before Parliament next Session?

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 82.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government have given instructions that the Army and Navy opinions regarding the Channel Tunnel shall be communicated to the House without loss of time so as not to delay the scheme a moment longer than is necessary?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement, as I have not yet received the observations of the Admiralty and war Office upon the subject. It is most unlikely that it will be possible to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Lincoln.

Sir A. FELL: Will it be possible for the Prime Minister to make this statement on Thursday, which, I believe, is the last day on which he will be present at Question-time?

THE PRIME MINISTER: If the Reports of the military and naval authorities have been received, it might be possible. I will see if that can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 75.
asked the Prime Minister whether the office of Paymaster-General is an office of profit under
the Crown included in Schedule H of 30 and 31 Vict., c. 102; and, if so, whether he will state on what grounds the right hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield has not vacated his seat on his appointment as Paymaster-General and submitted himself for re-election to this House?

THE PRIME MINISTER: It is true that the office of Paymaster-General is an office of profit included in the Schedule referred to in the question, but that fact does not involve the necessity of re-election upon appointment. On the contrary, by the express terms of 35 and 36 Vict., c. 44, Section (iv.), there is no such necessity in the case of the particular office.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Viscount CURZON: 77.
asked the Prime Minister whether any statement can now be made as to the future of Montenegro; by whom it is now occupied and governed; whether an attack upon this country by Gabriel D'Annunzio and his force is likely; and, if so, whether steps have been taken to prevent it?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to make any statement at present with regard to the first part of the question. As has been often explained, this subject is in the hands of the Supreme Council in Paris, who have not yet reached a decision. The country is administered by a Governor, appointed by the Government of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, who is believed to be of Montenegrin birth. The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative, and the fourth part does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — VISCOUNT GREY (LEAVE OF ABSENCE).

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 78.
asked the Prime Minister whether Viscount Grey of Falloden has intimated to the Government his intention to return from Washington; whether he has asked to be relieved of his special mission and has advised the immediate appointment of a permanent. Ambassador to the United States; and, if so, whether the Government will immediately
appoint an Ambassador so that British interests may not suffer by undue delay in selecting an Ambassador?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Lord Grey has asked to come on leave of absence in order to discuss many important questions with His Majesty's Government, and this request has been granted.

Captain REDMOND: Including Ireland!

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 80.
asked the Prime Minister whether the advisers of the Allied and Associated Governments are of opinion that under existing conditions there will in a comparatively short space of time be an economic collapse in certain parts of Central Europe; whether the effects of such a collapse would be very serious to the trade and economic situation in this country; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to bring before the public the gravity of the situation?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The gravity of the economic situation in Central Europe is fully realised by the Allied and Associated Governments, who have been and are in constant consultation as to the best way of meeting the crisis. It is hoped shortly to lay Papers on the subject.

Viscount CURZON: Is it a fact that all food in Austria comes to an end on the 21st January?

Oral Answers to Questions — Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (STATUE).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 81.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government arrangements to erect a statue to the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain at public expense are now complete; and whether the work will be commenced forthwith?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The first step will be a Motion by the Government that an Address be presented by the House to His Majesty praying that a monument may be erected. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that a Committee of Members of this House are in communication with a well-known sculptor on the subject.

Mr. MURRAY: As the matter has been postponed already from one Session to another, will it be possible to present that Address to His Majesty before the House adjourns?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiry about it, and I do not think it is necessary. Preliminary steps are being taken. Of course nothing definite can be done without the sanction of the House.

Mr. HOGGE: Is this the first statue that is to be erected in the House out of public funds?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not. My hon. Friend has asked many questions about it, and has always found that the House does not agree with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — LATE SITTINGS.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 83.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the County Courts Bill passed through four stages between midnight and 1 a.m. on the 9th December, and that the Scottish Nursing Bill passed through four stages at the following sitting; whether it has been usual in former Sessions to pass measures through all their stages at one sitting except in cases of extreme urgency; and whether, in order that Members may have reasonable opportunity of giving notice of Amendments, he will in future arrange to mark Bills specially upon the Order Paper in all cases where the Government propose to take more than one stage at a single sitting?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It frequently happens towards the end of a Session that for the general convenience of the House it is necessary to hasten legislation in order to ensure the Adjournment or Prorogation. It would be very difficult in practice to carry out the suggestion in the last part of the question, but I fully recognise it is not desirable to pass measures through all stages at one sitting when it can be avoided.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Could we not have notice given at Question-time of such an unusual course being adopted, so that hon. Members having Amendments to propose could put them down?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will
find that the practice has been universal at the end of a Session when there was no strong disagreement.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a fact that prior to the War this practice was unknown—I know that during the War it was resorted to occasionally—and was not this practice persisted in on Thursday night in a House of perhaps not more than fifty Members; and is it not desirable that legislation, if necessary, should be conducted in a proper way, and, if there is not time for it, that it should be postponed till another Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not quite sure, for I have not examined the question, whether it was never done before the War. I have already said that I recognise that it is not desirable, and I shall consider whether the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend can be adopted. I should like to point out to the House that we are doing this, not to suit the convenience of the Government, because it does not matter to us whether or not the Adjournment is later. We are doing it because we believe it is the desire of the House as a whole.

Dr. MURRAY: Why should a Scottish Bill be sacrificed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill was not in the hands of some hon. Members until a few minutes ago, yet all the stages of the Bill were passed in the early hours of the morning?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought there was general agreement about that.

Dr. MURRAY: You never asked.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see that the interests of Scotland are sacrificed because a Scottish Bill is allowed to go through.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give Scotland to-morrow, and drop the Education Bill which nobody in Ireland wants?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some people consider that some of these Bills are really detrimental; and will he not secure in future that Bills which are to be taken should have a double asterisk or a red ink mark placed against them, to warn hon. Members that they are going to be taken?

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

ROYAL PROCLAMATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what action he proposes to take on the Final Report of the Committee on Currency?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I trust that, having regard to the importance of this matter, the House will excuse the length of my reply.
The Committee reaffirm the views set forth at greater length in their first interim Report as to the importance of restoring at the earliest possible moment the pre-war methods of controlling the currency and credit system of the country and re-establishing the free market for gold in London. They point out that the difficulties of the foreign exchange position are aggravated by the grant of loans and credits to enable foreign States to pay for exports from this country when we in our turn have to pay cash for imports of necessities from America, North and South, and they recommend that preference be given to exports to countries which are able to make payment in the ordinary course of trade.
The argument as to the exchanges is, obviously, true, and we are fully alive to the importance of this aspect of the question. There are, however, other considerations arising out of our relations with our Allies and out of the economic condition of Europe to which due weight must be given in particular cases. Subject to the fulfilment of these obligations I agree with the Committee.
The Government further agree with the Committee's view that increased production, cessation of Government borrowings, and decreased expenditure both public and private are the first essentials to recovery. As far as I can foresee, the highest point of the National Debt will be reached in the course of the next month or six weeks, and I have every hope that thereafter we may be in a position to effect a gradual but steady diminution of the gross debt.
In paragraph 4 the Committee reaffirm their view that the principles of the Bank Charter Act of 1844 are well adapted to the needs of this country.
In paragraph 5 the Committee express their gratification at the efforts now being made to reduce the amount of Ways and Means Borrowings from the Bank of England, and express the hope that, with the return of more normal conditions, the Government will confine the use of such advances to what the Committee describe as their legitimate function, namely, to tide over a few weeks' shortage. I am in entire agreement with the Committee on this matter, and every effort will be made to continue the process of paying off such advances.
The question of the position of Foreign Banks in this country, referred to in paragraph 6 of the Report, is already under the consideration of the Board of Trade. In paragraph 7 the Committee recommend that the legal tender status accorded to the notes of Scottish and Irish Banks as an emergency measure in August, 1914, be withdrawn, and pre-war conditions restored.
I propose to give effect to this recommendation forthwith, and a Proclamation will be submitted this week to His Majesty in Council to take effect as from 1st January, 1920.
In paragraph 8 the Committee make three recommendations, namely (a), that the actual maximum fiduciary circulation of Currency Notes in any one calendar year be fixed as the legal maximum for the next; (b), that the practice of placing Bank of England notes in the Currency Note reserve as cover for the note issue as opportunity arises, be continued; (c) that the Treasury Minute made under section 2 of the Currency and Bank Note Act, 1914, providing for the issue on loan of currency notes to Joint Stock Banks be now withdrawn.
I propose to give immediate effect to the first and third of these recommendations, and to continue the policy recommended in the second. I propose to circulate in the OFFCIAL REPORT copies of the Treasury Minutes issued on these points.

Treasury Minute, dated the 15th December, 1919.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer draws the attention of the Board to paragraph 8 of the Final Report of the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges after the War, which recommends the imposition of a maximum limit on the issue of currency notes under the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1914. The Chancellor proposes to the Board that steps shall be taken to give effect to the recommendation that the
actual maximum fiduciary circulation of currency notes in any year shall be the fixed maximum for the following year.

The maximum fiduciary circulation during the expired portion of the current calendar year has been £320,608,298 10s., and the Chancellor accordingly proposes that directions shall now be given to the Bank of England restricting them from issuing currency notes during the twelve months commencing the 1st January, 1920, in excess of a total of£320,600,000, except against gold or Bank of England notes, and from issuing in the calendar year commencing 1st January in any year henceforward notes in excess of the actual maximum fiduciary circulation of the preceding twelve months.

My Lords concur.

Let copies of this Minute be transmitted to the Bank of England and Ireland, the Bankers' Clearing House Committee, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General; and let copies be presented to both Houses of Parliament.

Treasury Minute, dated the 15th December, 1919.

My Lords read Section 2 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1914, and the Treasury Minutes of the 6th and 20th August, 1914, and the 29th February, 1916.

Under the[...]owers conferred upon them by that Section the Treasury gave directions embodied in those Minutes for the issue of currency notes to bankers, and, upon the application of the National Debt Commissioners, to the Postmaster-General for the purpose of providing cash for the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and to the order of the trustees of any trustee savings bank for such amount as might from time to time be necessary to provide funds for the payment of sums due to depositors (including depositors in special in investment departments), the notes so issued being treated as interest bearing advances by the Treasury.

The arrangements then made were designed to meet the danger of a shortage of currency in the circumstances attendant on war conditions, and the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges after the War in their Final Report recommend that they should now be discontinued.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore recommends to the Board that the directions given by the Minute cited shall be revoked as from the 1st January, 1920, in so far as they provide for the issue of currency notes as advances to bankers and to the Postmaster-General and the Trustee Savings Banks, provided that any advance made under those powers and still outstanding upon that date shall be unaffected by such revocation and remain so unaffected until repayment.

My Lords concur.

Let copies of this Minute be transmitted to the Banks of England and Ireland, the National Debt Commissioners and the Bankers' Clearing House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is not intended to issue any notes of a less denomination than 10s. each?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope there will be no necessity to issue notes lower than
those now in circulation, but I cannot bind myself in anticipation of circumstances which I cannot foresee.

Mr. SUGDEN: In view of the immense international importance of currency exchange, will the Leader of the House give facilities for us to debate the whole question of currency and exchange on the Report now detailed by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising the question, if he thinks fit, on the Appropriation Bill.

Sir N. MOORE: Will an opportunity be given to discuss this question in Ways and Means?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The opportunity afforded by the Second or Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill will be open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS.

Sir F. HALL (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Transport whether. Mr. II. B. Wodehouse, engineer and manager of the Yorkshire Electric Power Company, is to be one of the Commissioners under the Electricity Bill, and, in view of the fact that it will come into operation in a few days' time, will he give the names of all the Commissioners appointed?

Mr. NEAL: I have not had an opportunity since the receipt of the question of consulting the Minister of Transport, but it would be an extraordinary course to adopt to give official propagation to the names of the Commissioners under a Statute which has not yet passed in another place, and therefore is not operative.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Wodehouse has or has not been appointed one of the Commissioners?

Mr. NEAL: I am sorry I did not make my answer sufficiently clear. I have no information on the point, and if I had, I do not think it would be right for me to express it.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more than once this House has insisted, before it
parts with a Bill, that the names of the Commissioners should be inserted on the face of the Bill?

Sir F. HALL: May I press the hon. Gentleman for a reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the matter is so important, the hon. and gallant Gentleman should put it down. He only handed it in at the last moment to the Under-Secretary.

Sir F. HALL: It was only because this is really the last day on which we shall have an opportunity of asking these questions except by private notice.

Mr. SPEAKER: To-day is Monday. We have the rest of the week.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE IN LONDON.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position today, or will he shortly be in a position, to give us any information about the Inter-Allied Conference which has just been held in London?

THE PRIME MINISTER: At the meetings which took place at Downing Street of representatives of France, Italy, the United States, Japan, and Great Britain on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of last week, important discussions took place on the conclusion of Peace with Turkey and Hungary, the Adriatic question, and the arrangements for future sittings of the Peace Conference and as to the ratification of the Treaties already concluded and the execution of their clauses.
The economic and financial situation was examined in detail. In order to remedy the fall in the exchange, prejudicial to the two nations, the British Government agreed to the issue of a French Loan in England, the date, the amount, and the conditions of which will be fixed by agreement between the two Governments.
The Russian situation was also taken fully into consideration, and on this, as on all other questions, the Allies were in complete agreement. The decisions taken on this question were in complete accordance with the policy already announced to the House of Commons.
It was decided to resume the Allied Conference at an early date which would be convenient for the attendance of the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of France, Italy, and Great Britain and the representatives of the United States and Japan, in order to formulate the proposals for the Treaty with Turkey and finally dispose of the difficulties arising out of the situation in the Adriatic.

Mr. BILLING: In view of the statement that France will be allowed to issue a loan in this country, are we to understand that we are to have French Premium Bonds?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Having regard to the importance of the subject, will the Prime Minister be present on the Appropriation Bill discussion, when, obviously, these matters must be debated in the House?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me the day when he proposes to raise this issue?

Sir D. MACLEAN: To-morrow.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has there been any departure from the pledge given in this House some time ago in regard to Russia?

THE PRIME MINISTER: No. The policy declared by the Allies, in respect of which there is complete agreement, is in accordance with the declaration which I made in the House of Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what business it is proposed to take during the remaining days of this week, and what business it is proposed to take to-night under the Notice of Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose to-day to take the first five Orders—Supply Committee, Supply Report, Ways and Means Committee, Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Bill, Committee, and the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Benefit Bill.
On the assumption that the outstanding Estimates be completed to-day, tomorrow we shall take the Appropriation Bill
On Wednesday and Thursday the Lords Amendments, whatever they may be, which come back to this House. On
Wednesday we also hope to take the Report stage of the War Emergency Bill.
It will probably be necessary to sit on Friday for the Lords Amendments to Bills which may not reach us in time to be taken on Thursday.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: When will the Lords Amendments to the Aliens Bill be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say; they have not come down to this House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [Mr. Boner Law]

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 31.

Division No. 155.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)
Mosley, Oswald


Allen, Col. William James
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Amery, Lieut. -Colonel L. C. M. S.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)


Archdale, Edward M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Colonel John
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Astor, Viscountess
Giyn, Major R.
Neal, Arthur


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Baldwin, Stanley
Greer, Harry
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward


Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)
Greig, Colonel James William
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Barnett, Major Richard
Griggs, Sir Peter
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barrand, A. R.
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)
Palmer, Brig. -Gen. G. (Westbury)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Parker, James


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Bennett, T. J.
Hanna, G. B.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)
Pennefather De Fonblanque


Betterton, H. B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. (Isle of Thanet)
Perring, William George


Billing, Noel Pemberton
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)


Blair, Major Reginald
Haslam, Lewis
Pinkham, Lt -Colonel Charles


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton


Borwick, Major G. O.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pratt, John William


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Purchase, H. G.


Breese, Major C. E.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Raeburn, Sir William


Briggs, Harold
Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)
Ramsden, G. T.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Burden, Colonel Rowland
Hinds, John
Rees, Captain J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Burdett-Coutts, W. L.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlethian)
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rowlands, James


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Houston, Robert Patereon
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Howard, Major S. G.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Seddon, James


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Casey, T. W.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Stewart, Gershom


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Hurd, P. A.
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Chadwick, R. Burton
Inskip, T. W. H.
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F, S. (York)
Sutherland, Sir William


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jellett, William Morgan
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. H. W. S.
Jesson. C.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Jodrell, N. P.
Terrell, Capt R. (Henley, Oxford)


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl.)


Colvin, Brig. -General R. B.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
King, Commander Douglas
Tickler, Thomas George


Cowan. D. M. (Scottish University)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Wallace, J.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lindsay, William Arthur
Wardle, George J.


Croft, Brig. -General Henry Page
Lloyd, George Butler
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Wason, John Cathcart


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.


Denison-Pender, John C.
Lonsdale, James R.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dennis, J. W.
Lynn, R. J.
Whitla, Sir William


Dixon, Captain H.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Wigan, Brig. -Gen. John Tyson


Dockrell, Sir M.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Doyle, N. Grattan
McMicking. Major Gilbert
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Duncannon, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Martin, A. E.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Edge, Captain William
Moles, Thomas
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swirdon)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Younger, Sir George


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Moreing, captain Algernon H.



Forrest, W.
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lord E.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Talbot and Com. Eyres-Monsell.


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Hogge, J. M.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, E.)
Swan, J. E. C.


Briant, F.
Kenworthy, Lieut. -Commander
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Curzon, Commander Viscount
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Newbould, A. E.



Harbison, T. J. S.
O'Connor, T. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Hartshorn, V.
Redmond, Captain William A.
Davison and Mr. Devlin.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)

ARRESTS IN IRELAND.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the wholesale arrests in Ireland and the deportation of prisoners, including Members of this House, without trial, and the increase of public disorder which these arrests are creating in Ireland."
The pleasure of the House not hating been signified,
Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the business of the day.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Ferries (Acquisition by Local Authoties) Bill [Lords.], without Amendment.

SUPPLY [STANDING COMMITTEE C].

Minutes of Proceedings of Standing Committee C in respect of Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimate; to be printed. [No. 231.]

ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Order [11th December] that the Paper relative thereto do lie upon the Table read, and discharged.

Paper withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AIR FORCE ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I rise in order to ask your ruling as to whether it might not be for the convenience of the Committee if the Debate were allowed, at any rate in the first instance, to be of a general character? I understand that various Members wish to bring forward questions of a general character. The sole reason for having another day given to Air and Army Supply after so many discussions in this Session was to enable general questions to be raised.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On the point of Order. I support the request of my right hon. Friend. At the same time, I would ask you to make a statement similar to that which you made on a previous occasion for the purposes of safeguarding the conditions and usages of this House in Committee of Supply.

The CHAIRMAN: I agree that, in the special circumstances of this year, it is desirable that a general discussion shall be permitted on the first Vote. Of course, it must be understood, as I said on the Navy Estimates, that it is only in the special conditions of this year, and is not to be taken as a general rule.

PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,518,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £17,533,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £45,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

Major-General SEELY: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I trespass on the time of the Committee for a few moments in order to raise one definite specific issue. I do not propose to go over the whole field of the Air Estimates, because it seems to me that that can be more suitably done on the
introduction of next year's Estimates. I rise now to call the attention of the Secretary of State to a definite point to which, at the same time. I wish to direct the attention of the Committee. I think tht House of Commons has the right to express an opinion on this point which has no doubt a very real national importance. On the occasion when I raised it myself, and when I resigned office, I do not think that the House quite apprehended the position. In the first place, I think they wondered what new fact had happened to cause the question to be raised at that moment, not realising that my resignation was the culmination of a series of protests against what I believe to be a policy fraught with danger to the defence of this country and the national well-being, which has continued for many months. In the second place, I do not think that the House realised that I was not likely to sever my connection with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on a matter of small importance, or as the Leader of the House said, on personal differences, seeing that for a period of nearly twelve years, excluding the period of the War, I have been connected on terms of the most official and private intimacy with him.
The Prime Minister has sent me word expressing regret that he could not be in his place to-day as he had an important conference at four o'clock; but what I have to say refers principally to the Prime Minister and it is to him, through the Leader of the House, I would make my appeal and to the Committee itself. The point which seems to me to make these Air Estimates bad Estimates is that the man, who is responsible for the expenditure of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 now, and will be responsible for the expenditure of £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 in future in a matter which more vitally affects our national defences, and, therefore, our national life than almost any other, cannot give more than one-tenth part of his time to the business. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in his reply will tell us, among other things, how much of his time he is able to spare to attend to the Air Ministry, either each day or each week. I tell him that he cannot spare one-tenth of it, and I have little doubt that he will confirm me. It may be, said that a responsible Minister has only to rely on the advice of his experts, and that he has
plenty of time to look after two or more departments. That is a most fantastic delusion. Anyone who has ever been in office or knows anything of the working of Government offices knows that if a man gives his whole time to it, all his waking hours, taking very little time for recreation, will find that, at the end of a long day of twelve or fourteen hours, there are many men whom he ought to have seen whom he did not see, many things which he ought to have read which he has not read, and many things which he ought to have done which he has not done.
There really is not time for a man who is Secretary of State for War to do all the work that falls upon him, and to ask that man of all others to undertake the work of looking after Estimates of this size, involving considerations of the importance which I shall venture to indicate, seems to me to be a proceeding so extraordinary that I do definitely ask the Committee to say they will have no more of it. If the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, can tell us that this system is to come to an end, I have nothing more to say on the point. If he says that the Prime Minister is of opinion that it is a good plan that the Secretary of State for War should also be Secretary of State for Air, then I can only say on my own behalf, and on behalf of a great number of Members of this House, and of a growing body of opinion in this country, that we will not rest until we have put an end to a system so baneful to the national defence, so contrary to the decision which Parliament has already made, and so fatal to the well-being of our future in the air, on land and on sea. That is a very definite challenge which I shall hope to make good in the course of the coming weeks, months, or years. I will never rest so long as this business continues.
I will say why the arrangement is bad. It is bad first because it is contrary to the decision of Parliament, above all the decision of this House, and the declarations of responsible Ministers who were responsible Ministers then and now. When the Air Force and the Air Ministry were formed the Bill was introduced into this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Major Baird), and on that occasion—I dare say that the Secretary of State for War has forgotten it—I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman does not like this point to be made clear—made a point of the necessity for a separate Ministry. What are we to say of a Gov-
ernment which introduces a Bill in this House, which is passed unanimously, which in both Houses of Parliament said that it is vital for our national safety both in peace and war to have a scheme the cardinal feature of which is a separate Minister giving his whole time to it, and then comes down to the House without a separate Minister and says that the whole business is to be run by a man who cannot give one-tenth of his time to it? Then, it is contrary to the declarations of the hon. Member for Rugby, the present Lord Chancellor, the present Leader of the Government in the House of Lords, the present Leader of the House himself, who will not deny, reading his emphatic words spoken in this House as to the necessity of this in peace and war, that the present arrangement is at variance and in contradiction with what he then conveyed to the House. If the Leader of the House had said at that time, "We propose to set up a separate Air Ministry; it will be spending £15,000,000 after the War; it will become more and more important, but we are going to hand it over as a sort of poor relation to one of the other Departments, and especially the War Office," there would have been a universal shout of condemnation. This, I think, the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit. That is the first point. It is not honest government. It is not straightforward dealing with the House of Commons to go back on his word.
The second point is that it is grossly unfair to the Admiralty. The Admiralty think that they have been deceived. They say very bluntly that they have been swindled. They accepted the policy of the Air Minister because they believed he would see fair play between the Army and the Navy. Now they find that the only man they can appeal to is the Secretary of State for War. It cannot be denied that the influence of air power on the Navy may have an effective and overwhelming importance. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made an extraordinary speech in this House some time ago in which he made an impassioned appeal to bring back Lord Fisher, as the only man to save the State. Lord Fisher is a man who, the right hon. Gentleman then said, would alone have the prevision to help us through the War. He now, however, suggests that the whole lot should be sacked, but he has an unhappy knack of being right. I have not seen Lord Fisher. I have not
communicated with him, but I do know this, that in matters of abstract truth he has been proved right over and over again. He takes an extreme view that the air development has made certain ships obsolete. He takes an extreme view that our new-found air power must alter the whole of our naval arrangements. I suppose that everyone who has carefully considered this matter in a scientific spirit realises the importance of this, and yet the question as to whether the Navy is to have the support from the air which it requires or not is left to be decided by a man who controls the Army. I referred to this as opéra bouffe the other day. It really is. It is not government. It is opéra bouffe.
The First Lord of the Admiralty the other night after eleven o'clock indicated that if he found that the arrangement was not satisfactory he would resign. He referred to the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He indicated—that is the view which I have put forward—the right hon. Gentleman as being a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, though he did not say whether the right hon. Gentleman's benevolent or murderous propensities were employed in the War Office or in the Air Ministry. But he made no secret, as I think the Committee will remember, that the present arrangement was distasteful to the Admiralty. He went further and said that the difficulties were with the Air Board—it should have been the Air Council. Who controls the Air Council? The President of that Council. It must be realised that the President of any Council must be responsible. Everything must come up to him, every point of importance must be settled by him. Ministers are forced to resign by an adverse vote of this House, or because there is a failure on any point of policy. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned on a purely technical point about cordite. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Secretary of State for India, resigned because of a failure in Mesopotamia; yet the man who has to deal with every point of important policy in the air is the mail who has the final say in allocating air power to the Admiralty, although, as he has to give his whole individual attention to every point of consequence in the Army, he cannot—I repeat it again and again—give one-tenth part of his time to the vitally important considerations affecting our whole naval supremacy.
My hon. and gallant Friend behind me the other day raised a question as to the possibility of the destruction of naval craft by torpedoes dropped from the air, and he seemed to be acquainted with the very remarkable advances recently made in that respect. If the advances that have been made in the last few months continue, it is probably true that the whole of our conception of naval warfare and strategy will be completely altered, and as this country has depended all through upon its command of the sea I submit, with respect, that the question of how far you are to employ your air power in support of your Fleet, or in substitution for your Fleet, is one which should take up the whole time of one man. I give that as one instance. Next, may I say that this arrangement is wasteful and extravagant in the extreme. A good many fresh things have happened since I first brought this matter before the House. First, there is the definite declaration of the Lord Chancellor that the Government intend to have a separate Air Ministry and a separate Air Force. It was assumed before that that the reason for this extraordinary arrangement was that it was intended to break it up anew. Now we have the Lord Chancellor definitely telling us that that is not so. The second thing is the memorandum by Sir Hugh Trenchard on air policy, emphasising that fact, with a covering minute by the Secretary of State saying that the Cabinet had given it provisional approval. Thirdly, we have these Air Estimates.
What possible argument can be found in favour of a plan which is condemned, so far as I know, by everyone in this House, by all the Navy, by all the Air Force. by all the Army, and, as far as we can see, by everyone outside? The only argument that might be adduced is the argument of economy. That argument falls completely to the ground. We have here in these Estimates an expenditure of over £50,000,000, showing a reduction, I am glad to say, over the Vote which it was my privilege to present to the House, but showing a Vote for the Air Ministry of £692,000 per annum. Therefore, you have your Air Ministry complete; just like the War Office and the Army Council, just like the Admiralty and the Board of Admiralty, and the Admiralty itself, you have the Air Ministry and the Air Council, and they are to cost £692,000 a year. They are going to spend the sum set out in these Estimates on matters which vitally affect our future on land and sea, and in civil
aviation. But when we come to the question how it is to be directed, when we come to the question of the responsible head who must deal with every point of principle and detail, it is proposed, in the cause of economy, forsooth, that of the £692,000 per annum for your directing staff you will put down £2,500 for the Secretary of State instead of £5,000, and thus nominally save £2,500. But you do not even do that, because the necessary liaison arrangements, as they call them, to make this extraordinary, fantastic, lopsided, ridiculous system work—the necessary liaison officers trying to join the War Office and the Air Ministry—use up, I estimate, at least that sum, so that there is no appreciable saving on your direction. What do you lose?
Suppose you set up a business which was to spend £50,000,000 a year, with great sums for research and vast arrangements to carry on a great undertaking throughout the world. Suppose you had some great wireless telegraphy company spending that sum and it was said, "You have got all this huge business. Who is going to direct you? Who is your general manager?" Suppose the answer was, "Well, we have not got a general manager, but we are calling in a man for an hour a week from outside." What would be thought of an arrangement like that? That is the arrangement come to now. We spend £692,000 a year on the administration of a great office. That office is responsible for an expenditure of £50,000,000, and it is all directed solely and entirely by a man who cannot give a tenth part of his time to the job. I shall want to know, and I am sure the Committee will want to know, from the right hon. Gentleman, what possible answer he is to make to this indictment. His answer will be, "The Prime Minister asked me to take on these two offices. If he asked me to take on twenty offices, I would take them on. As a loyal servant of the State I do whatever the Prime Minister desires. I am a humble man; I do only as I am told. So far the Prime Minister has asked me to take on only two offices. If he asked me to take on four or five I would do it." That will not do. The right hon. Gentleman may be a very humble individual, but I suggest to him that he is very unwise to attempt to carry on this work. There is no good telling the House of Commons he can give more than a tenth [...]art of his time to the Air Ministry. The War Office is an
exacting business, as I know, and if you add to that all the tasks in connection with demobilisation, and if you remember that the War Office have already had to say that they cannot answer their letters, you will see that the right hon. Gentleman must be a busier Secretary of State for War than any of his predecessors.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I never said I was not answering my letters.

Major-General SEELY: No; but you never answered them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is very unjust.

Major-General SEELY: I fully admit that the Secretary of State, of course, cannot answer all his letters. He has not time to do his own work at the War Office, still less time to attempt to do this business here. Everybody who comes straight up against it knows it must be true. There is only one other argument that may be used, and that is that it is a step towards a Ministry of Defence, and that a Ministry of Defence would be a very valuable thing, because you would get co-ordination of the land, sea and air services. This is not a step towards that end; it is a step away from it. A condition precedent to any co-ordination of the three Services is the independence and equal authority of all the three. If you once allow the Air to become, as it is, an annexe of the War Office, it is hopeless to suppose that you will ever get a proper junction of the three on equal terms. I do not believe that you would ever get a Ministry of Defence, a conjoint general staff; I am sure you will not until you completely separate the Army and the Air. Of course, it may be said that the Air is a business requiring little attention, that this is just an interim arrangement, and that by degrees the Air will cease to occupy the important position it occupies now. I submit that that is an erroneous view. Since the Air Ministry was formed by the unanimous Resolution of this House a great many things have happened, some during the War and many since, to make the views then expressed by the Leader of the House and by his colleagues even more true than they were then. The Independent Air Force had a great effect on the final issue. Since then on the commercial side extraordinary things have been done which the right hon. Gentleman could never have
foreseen. They snow the possibilities of the future The Atlantic has been crossed by a heavier-than-air machine, and a very great man has nown to Australia, half-way round the world. It is quite true that it has been difficult and dangerous, and it is because we are doing these peaceful things with war machines. But when there is time to lend the same energy and thought to civil aviation and its prospects as were devoted to the problems of war, we shall see astounding advances in civil aviation. It is one of the things which might well require a man's whole time to the exclusion of all other things. even the service side. Yet that also is relegated to this position.
It I have spoken with emphasis it is because I feel deeply, as I know hundreds and thousands in this country do. To sum up I will say this: That the policy to which the Government have committed themselves is one which is not an honest arrangement, that it pretends to do a thing which it does not do. It is not honest, it is not straightforward, because you say you have a separate Air Ministry when in fact it is not separate—it is joined at the top. It causes grievous concern to all sailors and all airmen. It is bad in every way for the future of the air and of those controlling it. It is regarded as an unfair thing by the Admiralty, from the top to the bottom. It has no friends, not even in the War Office. As for economy, it does not even save even a few hundreds of pounds in salaries, for all the salaries are there already, and it has probably lost lost several million pounds by delays in decisions in the past, and will probably lose millions more in future, because it is a futile plan giving a vast business to the control of a man who can only give a tenth or a fifteenth part of his time to the task. Lastly, it is wrong when we have taken the lead in the air, and when the whole world looks to us as leaders in the air, and when the whole world has stood amazed at the courage and, determination with which we have won our place in this new clement, a place higher than that of any other nation in the world, it is wrong, quite apart from its dishonesty, to go and place it in a subordinate position, and prevent it reaping that success which the valour of our airmen has secured for it.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It is, of course, as I am sure my right hon. Friend realises, hardly suitable
that the Secretary of State for Air and War should himself justify an appointment which was not made by him, and in the absence of the Prime Minister, I am going to address a few words to the Committee on that subject, and on that sub-feet only. The last thing I desire is to enter into anything like a personal controversy with my right hon. Friend, but I must say that I think there has been on his part a great deal of confusion as to what the issue really is which is now before the Committee. In one particular point I entirely agree with him. He made some interesting remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about his modesty and other qualities, and he added that he had left undone many things which he ought to have done. I should be surprised if that is not true of my right hon. Friend, and I should like to know of what Minister it is not true.

Major-General SEELY: It applies to all Ministers.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman took another line of argument, which I think is entirely wrong. He laid before the Committee the vast work which this new force has got to do, and he seemed to assume that the man to do all this exploring and all this examination as to the future possibility of the air was the political head of the Department. I think that is entirely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman even carried that so far as to imply that because letters are not answered promptly by the War Office that therefore the Secretary of State must have more to do than he can do. That really had nothing whatever to do with the case. I should say at once if the Secretary of State for War attempted to answer the letters in detail which came to the War Office that would be the best proof that he was unfit for his job, and should be removed from it. That is why I say that my right hon. Friend has, I entirely confused the issue. I should like to say this to my right hon. Friend, that there is no part of our fighting forces in which I take personally so great an interest, and if I believed for a moment that the effect of this arrangement was to destroy the future usefulness of this Service, I would be one of those most strongly opposed to it. But I do not think that is so, and I have looked at the matter entirely from the point of view, not of theory but of how
it was working in the circumstances in winch we are placed to-day, and I confess, without wishing to enter into the details, I really am at a loss to understand the position of my right hon. Friend in this matter. He tells us that this is dishonest, fantastic, lopsided, ridiculous, and yet it is precisely that which, with his eyes open, he undertook to work.

Major-General SEELY: No. I did not deal with that point because I made it plain in the personal statement which I made on my resignation, and which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman heard. The proposal of the Prime Minister originally to me was a wholly different one. As was stated in the newspapers, I was to preside over the Council. It was discovered later that it was impossible under the Air Force Act that that arrangement could be made and that I should be Air Minister in anything but name. Directly that was discovered and we were so advised and that it was found that the President of the Air Council must be the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Churchill), I at once made my protest. I at once, after it was found it could not be altered, communicated with the Chief Whip and informed him that unless it could be altered for the good of the Air Force I should be forced to resign. I wish to make it plain, I never would have consented to an arrangement that the President of the Air Council should also be Secretary of State for the Army. It is important.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is important, but it makes it really more confused for this reason. My right hon. Friend now says he undertook to enter on this arrangement with the idea in his mind that there was to be a system which is absolutely impossible in any business or in any Government Department—that is to say, that nobody was to know who was the head of the Department.

Major-General SEELY: I was to be President of the Air Council.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that is the real point of difference. I would venture to say to my right hon. Friend and the Committee—and I think I can say it to him without any offence, and I am sure lien in a sense he realises his position—I do believe that system has worked worse with him than would be at least possible with some who had not held so distinguished political nests in the past,
and who had not his distinguished record in the War. I am afraid that throughout my right hon. Friend did not accept the position that he was only an Under-Secretary, to carry out the duties of the Secretary of State for Air. That is what I believe. It is quite obvious to the Committee that whatever else may be good or bad in the administration, it must be perfectly clear that there is one man who has the final say and must be the final and absolute head of the Department. There are only two questions which remain. It is idle to say that this arrangement is going back on statements made, amongst others by myself, that we were to have ar Independent Air Force.

Major-General SEELY: The Air Ministry.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not depend on who is the particular individual who is political head of that Ministry. How could it? Over and over again in our political history one Minister has filled more than one post, and my right hon. Friend has no more right to say that the Air Force is being sacrificed to the Army than those in favour of the Army would have the right to say that the Army was being sacrificed to the Air Force—absolutely no right. Therefore, in my judgment, the one question which the Committee has a right to know, and on which to ask for an answer, is whether or not it is true that it is impossible for one man to fill adequately the duties of the two posts. That is really the one question.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it right it should be the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That raises another question with regard to the Navy with which I mean to deal. Leaving that aside, the one question is—whether or not one man can fulfil these duties? I ask the Committee to bear this in mind, that in making any comparison as to the relative capacity of individuals, everybody knows that there is an immense difference between the power of getting through work on the part of one man and another. One man can easily do work in an hour which another man would take three or four hours to do, and not necessarily do it any better. I myself have seen over and over again, not only in political life, but in business life, that it does not follow that the business, no matter what it is, is going to be better off because you have one man who devotes his whole time to it than if it is superintended and directed by another man who
has not so much time, but in tin time he has to spare has the faculty of getting on the spot and dealing with the thing really essential. That is the difference—it is not whether or not you are to give so many hours a day, but it is whether or not you are giving enough time to adequately superintend the work. I put this to the Committee, if I may be permitted to do so. I had an experience in a small way When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I was told constantly I could not fill the post because I had so much else to do. That may or may not have been true, but I always took this view: You have no right to assume that a man is not doing the work unless there is evidence to that effect. You must judge this the same way. You will have an opportunity this afternoon of hearing a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the air. Judge by that whether or not he has not a complete grasp of all the problems and is not capable of giving to them the attention which they absolutely require. That is the test. There is another point I would like to put to the Committee. My right hon. Friend laid out the arguments which I would use, but I have not used any of them so far, and I am not at all sure that I am likely to do so. There is one argument which has been suggested, and I admit at Once it will be a vital argument, if sound. That argument is that, because the Secretary of State for Air is also Secretary of State for War, that therefore the Navy is being sacrificed to the War Office. If that were true, we could not have a worse arrangement. I have taken, so far as I could, some trouble personally to find out not whether this is a good plan in theory, but how it was working. I have consulted, not behind the back of my right hon. Friend but with his knowledge, the heads of the Air Department, and I have spoken also to those who represent the Navy.

Major-General SEELY: The First Lord?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. Of course it is true that in any rearrangement of Services there must be great difficulties between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry. There must be, but those difficulties will only be great if he takes the point of view of the Army and not of Air in these questions. Difficulties will not arise in any other way. I have made it clear there are difficulties, but I can say with
absolute confidence, after discusing it with the First Lord, that there is no reason whatever to suppose that the difficulties have been or will be greater because my right hon. Friend happens to be Secretary of State for War than if he were dealing with them solely as Secretary of State for Air. The whole question is, Does he or does he not look at air problems with a bias in favour of the Army? If he did, it is a wrong appointment; if he does not, and if he tries to deal with it as well as he can on the merits as if he were solely Air Minister, then I do not think the House of Commons has much reason to complain of the arrangement.
5.0 P.M
I think that is nearly all I have to say on this subject; but there is another aspect of it that is worth considering. We do not put this forward because we save £5,000 a year in salary. That would be childish, but I do ask the Committee to bear this in mind. If the Air Force is to be properly developed, and if you are to make the best of it, that does not mean that before you have a proper examination, and before the experts have gone into every aspect, that you have to continue a great expenditure of money. That is not really developing the Air Force. The Committee must bear in mind that there is an immense difference between a force which was spending close on£400,000,000 a year and a force which as far as we can see at present will spend £15,000,000 per year, or the equivalent of £6,000,000 pre-war money. There is something more than expense and efficiency involved in this matter. You may think that that Service is more likely 5.0 P.M. to have its end kept up by a man of the distinction, if I may say so, of my right hon. Friend, who has taken at least as much interest all through in the Air as any other Minister, [...] by somebody else who obviously could not be one of the most important members of the Cabinet. I think that is obvious. If I were keenly interested in the Air Force, provided I believed my right hon. Friend could give the time that is necessary, I would say, from the point of view of the Air Force, that it was not a bad arrangement to have him there Then there is another point. It is quite true that the Air Force for the Navy was during the War extremely important, and it is very likely in future wars to more important than it was in the past. Very likely—I agree with what has been said by Lord Fisher
about that—but you have got to look at the position as it is at this moment. There are two questions which are engaging the attention of those who are responsible for our fighting forces. The two most important at the moment are demobilisation and the arrangement of the Air in relation to the Army.

Major - General SEELY: indicated dissent.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am surprised my right hon. Friend doubts that, if he does. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think so. Demobilisation and the Air Force go closely together. Assuming other things to be equal, assuming that my right hon. Friend has not a bias in favour of the Army as against the Navy, if he has not, I think it is a distinct advantage that the same man should have both problems before his mind at the time he is working on them. But there is far more than that. In deciding the extent of the Air Force which we are to keep—we have had this over and over again—we have got, in trying to decide what size of an Air Force we will keep, to go down to the other problem. "Very well," you say, "you need such-and-such squadrons in the East. Tell us how much Infantry and how much Artillery you are going to do away with in consequence of receiving these additional airmen." I am sure my right hon. Friend opposite must see that these two problems, the question of the size of the Air Force and the size of the armed force go closely together, and it is an advantage to have the same man looking at both from the same point of view—the view, namely, of getting the most efficient force, and at the same time the least expensive force, which the country can have. I am not going to say anything more. I do not suggest that this is a permanent arrangement, nor do I suggest that my right hon. -Friend was made Secretary of State for Air merely because he was Secretary of State for War. That is not so; it was discussed between the Prime Minister and myself at the time the appointment was made, but the ground on which it was recommended was not that he was filling the position of Secretary of State for War, but that he was competent to fill the position of Secretary of Sate for Air and to do the War Office work as well. That is all. This is not any question of principle at all. There is no idea in anyone's mind that the Air Force is not to be an independent Force. The sole question
is whether or not my right hon. Friend is capable of fulfilling the duties of both offices. All I can say is that, whatever other defects he may have—I do not know whether he has any—this will be admitted by everyone that he has no lack of ability, he has no lack of industry, he has great capacity for getting through work. He has shown it in those departments and for the present at least I honestly think that at this moment this is not a bad arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite (Major-General Seely) to see whether he could make out a better case than the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and myself did on the Amendment to the Address, and although he put the case with more acoustic dignity, yet I do not believe there were any more points in his speech than we made. We felt at the same time that the machinery which was proposed by the Prime Minister was a direct threat to the integrity of the Air Force and the Air Ministry as a. whole, but we have got to look at this thing from the point of view of what has happened, and I maintain that the publication of what I call the Trenchard Memorandum proves that the Government was perfectly sincere in what it said in saying that it was going to keep the two Services, absolutely apart. I want to deal with the Trenchard Memorandum, which is undoubtedly the most interesting aeronautical document that we have ever had put before us, because we see in it a Service actually being born, and I hope that Labour will take a great interest in this, because now is the time to get that Service thoroughly democratic from top to bottom, with great possibilities for everybody to join early. It should be the great democratic force of the future. It was a great reform to get a single united Air Service. I see one or two lines in this Report which disturb me, and if I may I will read them:
In addition, there will be a small part of it (the Air Force) specially trained for work with the Navy and a small part specially [...] for work with the Army, these two small portions probably becoming in the future an arm of the older Service.
Does that foreshadow a return to a small Royal Flying Corps and a small Royal Naval Air Service over and above a separate Air Force?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am glad to hear that. We must remember that in the heart of the Air Force there is always a fear, being a young Force and not being established very long as a separate service, that we are always trying to be taken over by the Army or the Navy, and with the present arrangement we have got to remember that the first business, so to speak, of the Air Ministry is to make the Army efficient by aircraft and the Navy efficient by aircraft We are under two cross fires. The Army plead for more aircraft to make them efficient, and the Navy already after the War has realised that aircraft is useful on the seas, and consequently I foresee that most of the money voted for the Air Force will go to the two older Services. If the separate arm foreshadowed in that Memorandum ever comes about, could the Secretary of State tell us whether the cost of machines for those two separate Services will be borne on the Votes of the other Service and not on the Air Vote?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They will be borne on the Air Force Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I want to make it clear that the position with regard to the Navy has changed fundamentally in this country because of the advent of aircraft. The Navy has lost for ever its claim to be able to defend us against attack, and we have got to remember that. It is a fundamental change in this country. The Navy and the Army are forces that work in two dimensions. During the last ten years a new force has sprung up which works in three dimensions, and no two-dimensional force can resist a three-dimensional force. It is absurd to think it could. The power of defence of both the older Services is enormous to-day. In the case of the Army. barbed wire and trenches make it difficult to make headway; and in the case of the Navy, mines and submarines are a wonderful defensive method, but there is no defence against aircraft to-day. The possibility of directing aircraft in a fog to a place hundreds of miles away and there dropping bombs without ever being seen is something there is no answer to today. The only answer is to have a bigger Air Force so as to have the potential power of hitting back. The late War was called an engineers' war. and there is no doubt that wars in the future can only be won by the ultimate industrial resources of a
country. The first object of attack in any future campaign will be undoubtedly, not the military arm of the State, but the industrial arm of the State, and if a foreign Power were to endeavour to hit England, the first place she would try and hit us to-day would be in our industrial heart, in a place like Birmingham or Glasgow. Could the Army or the Navy possibly defend it? There is only one Force that could defend it, and that is the new Air Force.
I want to say a word on civil aviation. I had the honour of serving on that Advisory Committee which has given a Report. First of all, the supremacy which this country has got to in the air is not entirely due to the military. That seems to be sometimes forgotten. I quite admit that there are many manufacturers who have become very wealthy, but that is not all they want, and I think, from the point of view of rewards. we have been very lax in looking after those brains arid those organisers, which, quite apart from any military point of view, have put us on top. I heard someone say the other day that if Wilbur Wright had been an Englishman he might have got an O.B.E. The Advisory Committee on Imperial Air Routes had an extraordinarily difficult task, because if there ever was anything in the air, so to speak, it was civil aviation. The whole question was the most nebulous I have ever approached, and nobody knew anything about it whatever. There were no figures, and what experience there was was only based on a military basis, and we had very little to go on at all. One very leading light was asked by us what was holding back civil aviation, and he replied, with very great confidence, "Your Committee."
The next witness, when we asked him, said that his plans were too secret to divulge. That did not impress us very much, because by that time we had got to realise that nobody knew anything about it at all. If anybody interested in the air has read the Report furnished by the Committee, I hope it will be noticed that really the demands are very moderate indeed. We took into consideration the financial condition of the country. We should really have liked to have asked for a great deal more. but, in view of financial considerations. we have asked for very little.
I hope Labour will take an interest in this question, because we see starting now a new power, a new industry, and, if we
do not look out, new vested interests. What was at the back of our minds was how to avoid building up a goodwill against the State. We have seen necessities of life, like the telephones, started by private enterprise and then pushed on to the State, the State having to pay for the goodwill created. What was at the back of our minds was to arrange some scheme whereby the State at some time could take control of all aviation throughout the world without having to pay for vested interests. The recommendation was that all aerodromes should be State-owned. The expenditure for that is not a very big item, and I should very much like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether the Government intend making good the recommendations of that Committee. I hope I shall not be out of order in drawing attention to one or two lines in the Report of the American Aviation Commission—
Great Britain's plan of organisation certainly warrants our most careful consideration. It is not argued that the British method is perfect, but it can be stated without fear of contradiction in any quarter, that it stands to-day the most comprehensive governmental mechanism yet set up by any nation in the world for the encouragement, upbuilding, direction and control of its air resources. This organisation has been born of five bitter years of trial, mistake, experience and progress. It is the product of the best brains in the British Empire focussed under the spur of national [...] and the demand of the British people. We in America may well study it carefully.
I fear there is a characteristic of the English nation always to run itself down, and we in this country spend our time in running down our own wonderful achievements; but I hope we shall hear from the Secretary of State for Air to-night that no policy of destruction in any particular will prevail on the Government that may spoil or impair the proud position this country holds to-day in aviation.

Mr. LAMBERT: The Leader of the House, in his speech defending the present arrangement under which by administration, and not by Act of Parliament, the Air Force has been placed under the Secretary of State for War, did not tell us whether it was to be a permanent arrangement or not. No one, after listening to the speech of the Leader of the House—and evidently he has taken a considerable interest in the matter—knows now whether the Government think this is an ideal administrative arrangement, or whether it was entered into simply because the
present Secretary of State for War is a man of unusual ability. I do not know. Supposing that a less brilliant man than the present Secretary of State for War were at the War Office, would the Air Ministry still be placed under his charge? No one has a higher admiration for the present Secretary of State for War than I have. I have worked with him. I know his insight, and how he struggled in the early days of flying for the Navy to develop that arm of offence and defence. But when we come to consider the future of the Air Force, and how it should be organised in connection with other great fighting Services, it must not depend upon the ability of a particular man who is at the head of the War Office as to whether the Air Force shall be under his control or not. Indeed, if carried to the logical conclusion, the argument of the Leader of the House means that the Secretary of State for War would not only run the War Office and the Air Ministry, but he would have to run the Admiralty as well.
I feel very strongly that this system is wholly wrong. I may say I do not approach it from any personal interest, for I have none whatever, but I do know full well—and the House will realise—it will not be so empty next March or April, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces his Budget—the economic condition of the country will reveal itself in next year's Budget, and we shall have very considerable and very needed discussion in crowded Houses; but it is from this point of view of economy of our fighting Forces, consistent with efficiency in those Forces, that I approach this matter. I have no other interest at all. I say—and it has been rather obscured—that undoubtedly for this country in the future, as in the past, and in this War, the naval Service must take precedence. Without the Navy, the magnificent Armies that were trained could not have landed in France. I do not hesitate in saying, or withdraw from the position, that the Navy is and absolutely must come first in questions of offence and defence. This question has to be looked at from the point of view of men who have vision and imagination. At the preset moment, apparently, it is being looked at purely and solely from the consideration of expediency. My right hon. Friend who opened this Debate spoke of that great man Admiral Lord Fisher. The House knows I have mentioned Lord Fisher's name more than once, and I advocated—in fact, I followed my right hon.
Friend some years ago in advocating—his being brought back. There is no doubt that a man of Lord Fisher's extraordinary vision realises the vast importance—I have had conversations with him about it—of the Air Force. But let me take another distinguished admiral—an admiral who proved himself an extraordinary prophet at the beginning of the War—and that is Admiral Sir Percy Scott. Whatever may be thought of Admiral Sir Percy Scott—and I know a good many people find it rather difficult, possibly, to get on with him—there is no doubt he has extraordinary genius and vision. He wrote a letter to the "Times," dated 11th December, in which he said:
There must be great changes in the future Navy. In my opinion its most, important arm of offence and defence, the aeroplane, has been taken from it.
That, coming from Admiral Sir Percy Scott, is really a very serious state of affairs. He goes on:
We are going back to the customs of 100 years ago, when we had our ships worked by sailors, and the guns manned by artillerymen from the shore.
That is just where we are: the Navy has to man the ships, but the Secretary of State for War has to supply the aeroplanes. I cannot understand how really that has come about. Sir Percy Scott says:
If the surface battleship is dead, then its death will greatly affect the future Navy. I said before the War that she was dead. I and a great many naval officers now think she is more dead, if that is possible.
Nobody can realise the change which must be made in our naval strategy if it be a fact, as Admiral Sir Percy Scott says, that the surface ship is dead. One has always been used to ships floating on the water, but if the surface ship is dead—and Admiral Sir Percy Scott proved himself an extremely good prophet six months before the War, when he said the submarines would render it extremely difficult, for a battleship to appear in open water—I think we must have some consideration for the words of such a distinguished man. Really it revolutionises the whole of our supplies. Our supplies are brought to this country floating on the water. If the surface ship is dead, then the surface naval ship can no longer protect our supplies; and Admiral Sir Percy Scott goes on to say:
The introduction of dropping mobile torpedoes from areoplanes has made the existence of the battleship still more precarious.…The use of mobile torpedoes introduces a question which will require very careful consideration before we even think of building another surface battleship.
This question of mobile torpedoes—I frankly admit I am not an expert, but have simply taken the views of some experts on the matter—is of vital import to the future of our Navy, I am sure the Secretary of State for War must realise that, but I find, according to his Memorandum,
The torpedo-carrying squadron will be located at Gosport, the most suitable station for torpedo work, and it is proposed to provide a small experimental unit at, the same station, in order to develop fully this form of co-operation with the Navy, which is of primary importance.
It is no use talking of "co-operation with the Navy." It is the Navy's business to protect surface ships. If it is not the Navy's business, then I cannot understand whose business it is. We must not talk of co-operation. The protection of surface ships must he absolutely under the control of the Admiralty. I am going to argue in a few moments that it is wholly wrong to put the Air Ministry under the War Office, and that it should be put under the Admiralty. There is no doubt about it. When you see before, your eyes that the surface ship is doomed, what is to take its place? Then we are told that this aerial torpedo is to be experimented on at Gosport under the Secretary of State for War and the Air Ministry. And that is the weapon that practically wipes out all surface ships that England possesses! It is no use my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) shaking his head. That is in the Memorandum. I have not read the official paper, but I have read it in the "Times," which, I believe, is correct. I see that the Air Force is to bring in officers and men, and I will give Sir Hugh Trenchard the great credit that he has copied, almost in its entirety, this system of educating naval officers from my old friend, Lord Fisher, whose scheme it was. The entry of officers into the Air Force, as I understand it, is to be through a cadet college. Anyone who thought about naval affairs felt the Navy was built up for ten years before the War upon the assumption that it was to meet the German menace, hence the colleges for the entry of cadets into the Navy were gradually expanded under the control of
the First Lord at Osborne and Dartmouth. Are these two naval colleges required today? Are they to be filled up with naval cadets, as before the War? I should like to ask that question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: my hon. Friend must ask the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. LAMBERT: No, Sir; it is a question for the Government as a whole, and that, is what I complain of. My right hon. Friend says: "Ask the First Lord of the Admiralty." It is a question for the Government in their unification of the defence of the country as a whole. The size of the Navy as a whole must surely be considered by the Cabinet in relation to the other Forces ! I Really, I am not trying to make out a pettifogging case. I ask my right hon. Friend opposite, can he say whether Osborne and Dartmouth will be filled in the future, because it directly bears upon my argument? The information is that the Air Ministry propose to build a new college in Lincolnshire. Why build a new college when you have two colleges at Osborne and Dartmouth? After all, economy must have some weight with the Government. It certainly will have some weight with the country. Of that I can assure my right hon. Friend. Has he considered the point I have put? Surely it is an important point in connection with these two colleges. If they cannot, or, I presume, will not, be filled in the future to the same extent as in the past, why do you spend money upon an enormous air establishment at Cranwell, in Lincolnshire? I ask for that information. Expenditure upon public buildings is a most expensive part of these establishments. If I rightly remember, the establishment at Dartmouth cost half a million, or more.

Sir E. CARSON: Yes, more.

Mr. LAMBERT: I think the initial cost was £500,000; at any rate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would not build a new Air College at much less than £1,000,000; then it would have to be kept up. Is it necessary to build a new Air College? I ask that in the first instance. As I said, it appears to me, from this Memorandum, that the training of the officers of the new Air Service is based almost entirely upon the training necessary for the naval Service. I observe that these cadets come from this college, and they are to go to the air station, there to undergo a course of gunnery. After five years' training they are to select from three dif-
ferent branches—navigation, engineering, wireless. I presume my right hon. Friend is aware of these things. He was aware of them from the Admiralty point of view. How does this training differ from the training which was given to naval officers? My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the naval officer was trained in navigation, engineering, gunnery, and torpedo work. There were the Marines, but I put that aspect on one side. Therefore, I say that it fits in admirably with the present system of naval training that you should train your air officers at the naval establishments. I cannot see anything against it.
Again, let me take the boys. Sir Hugh Trenchard rightly says that the training is the most difficult problem in the formation of this Force; he advocates that the men should he brought in young. The Admiralty have got buildings for this purpose. They enter boys into the Navy at a quite early age at Shotley and Harwich. Then there are the establishments, the "Vernon" and the "Impregnable," at Devonport. The boys are trained there. The Navy of the future will not be so big as was required in the past. Therefore, why cannot you utilise the Admiralty establishments for the training of the officers and men of the Air Force? I have no predilection one way or the other, but it does seem to me that the Government have given no consideration whatever to co-ordinating these forces—none whatever! I cannot find any mention of it in the speech of the Leader of the House. I hope I may find evidence of it in the speech that we shall get from tie right bon. Gentleman opposite. I do press this point upon the Government, that, having regard to economy, having regard to the evolution of the Naval Air Force, and the revolution that has come about in all naval defence, instead of the Secretary for War being head of the Air Ministry, emphatically I say that the head of the Air Ministry should be the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. MOSLEY: In commenting upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, I would do so from the point of view of one who has been connected in the past with the Air Forces, perhaps from the commencement of the present arrangement, by which the Air Ministry and the War Office are united under one chief. I think those who are associated with me must upon this sub-
ject base our opposition to the present arrangement upon two arguments: Firstly, that the War Office and the Air Ministry is a two-man job; and, secondly, that the Air Ministry is liable to become subordinate to the War Office, and by reason of that fact the War Minister is necessarily susceptible to the opinion of the senior Army officers. The Leader of the House argued that there are remarkable men in this world who are capable of doing twice as much work as the ordinary man. That is the old argument of the super-man, which has frequently been advanced in this House during the past Session. It is an argument which, I believe, is becoming somewhat discredited in this country. I believe we are witnessing a certain disillusionment in respect to these alleged capacities, and the power of one man to do the work of two or three. I believe we are living in a period which is seeing what I may call the passing of the super-man or the "twilight of the gods. "I do not for one moment say that if any man could fulfil this dual function my right bon. Friend the Secretary for War and Air would not be capable of performing it. I am sure that the Committee will agree when I say that though I have the greatest. admiration for his remarkable capacity, and I am sure if any man is selected to fufil this onerous position, that he is very fitted to do so, yet our contention is that the work of the War office during this period of demobilisation which has just passed, and the great difficulties which lie ahead of us, will make such an enormous demand upon the time of any one man that such a man cannot possibly afford to devote proper attention to the birth of that Service which we are witnessing in the present transitional stage of the Air Service.
we have just been presented, as the hon. Member for Chatham says, with a very remarkable Memorandum on the future of the Air Ministry. It sketches in advance the great new era for the Air Force of this country. Surely, when we read that Memorandum and all the far-reaching proposals contained therein, we are impressed by the fact that it will take one man more than his full time to grapple with these problems. The contention of the Leader of the House, it seems to me, is that one man should make himself responsible for all these great innovations which we are now witnessing. The poli-
tical head of the Department is never responsible for such things as answering letters, of going into matters of administrative detail. Such things are necessarily left to the departmental officers concerned. my right hon. Friend might just as well have argued, as it often is argued, that you might as well dispense with your political chiefs altogether and allow the country to be run by its Civil servants. Our contention is that though the political head of the Department cannot answer all letters, and cannot attend to every detail, he should have leisure to go into the big problems, and should have his whole time to devote to such questions of detail as one man can devote himself to. In all the great ramifications of modern organisation the political head of the Department: cannot go into every detail. We all admit that. At the same time he ought to go into every detail he possibly can in a full-time job. If the Leader of the House had argued against our contention on the lines that it would be better to set up a Minister who could exercise a joint supervision over the three Departments, Army, Air, and Navy, delegating almost absolute power in matters of detail to three Under-Secretaries, then, I think, we should have been far more disposed to meet him. That is a contention which we could have understood. At the present time, however, we have a most anomalous arrangement. We have how an Air Ministry about which it is admitted that the exigencies of future warfare will demand complete unification under a General Imperial Staff which will take into account the interdependent demands of the various Services.
It has been powerfully argued by my right hen. Friend who sits on the Front Opposition Bench that the Air Service of the future will very likely supersede many of the functions of the Navy. He even went so far as to say that the Air Service should be subordinate, not to the War Office, but to the Admiralty. But surely our contention is borne out that the Air Ministry should not be subordinate to any one Department? This is a matter to be faced, for if there is to be any unification such as we all desire, and which apparently also the Government desire, then a Minister of Defence should be appointed with three Under-Secretaries who will have authority over matters of detail in the three Departments, the Minister of Defence being merely the co-ordinating
power between the three Departmnts and at the head of a united General Staff. There is no logical difference between three completely independent Services with chiefs and a Ministry of Defence with three Services co-ordinated by him under his control. The Leader of the House left us in the dark as to what was the future intention of the Government. I hope the Secretary of State for War will be able to afford us some enlightenment upon this topic upon which many of us feel very strongly. We should like to know whether the Government intend to continue indefinitely in the present position whereby in spite of assertions to the contrary we believe the exigencies of the Air Services are subordinated to the War Office, and the senior staff who control the War Office. We should like to know whether the Government have it in mind to consider the possibility of setting up a Ministry of Defence, with an Imperial General Staff, and to leave such a Ministry the new problems of warfare which will arise in the future and which will necessitate some such provision.

Major GLYN: I want to say a word or two with regard to the relations between the civilian side of aviation and its military aspect since in this branch we are dependent upon its expansion through the civil side for numbers If we had an independent Minister and Air Force we should not confuse it with the immediate requirements of the Army or the Navy. There is such inter-dependence between these branches that we should regard the aeroplane as a military weapon adaptable to civil conditions, and capable to be readapted to war purposes, and unless you have a Minister who will assist civil aviation we shall be hard put to it in time of stress to find the requisite number of machines. The Air Force was young when the War commenced, and the demands of the land service and the Navy were incessantly increasing, and the Air Force at first was never allowed to show its independent use; in fact it was only at the close of the War that we established an independent force which showed its use as a separate independent weapon by destroying the moral of the German army and bombing the Rhine towns. Just as declarations of War are becoming less and less formal in spite of the League of Nations, we must not overlook the possible use of the most modern means of
any nation to gain its ends. What is to prevent a nation with plenty of aeroplanes making a sudden raid on a country not prepared for defence.
The pushing of the civil side of this problem necessitates the maintenance at least of an Under-Secretary, if not of a Minister, and when the time comes for the formation of a Joint Imperial Stall, the status of each of the Services should be considered equal. I imagine in the future that any nation which goes to war will consider the preliminary bombing of the enemy country, to destroy their communications and upset their moral. I remember reading the effect produced on London by thirty-five German machines going in steady formation over the city and proceeding to bomb it in broad daylight. I read the outcry that occurred in the public Press asking what the Government were doing by not having any defence to repel those machines. If the Germans at a time when we were rapidly overhauling them could carry out a raid like that to threaten our moral, there is nothing in the world to prevent a foreign country from doing the same thing just prior to going to war to upset our mobilisation, and the effect would be to depress a great many people whose courage might not be of such a high order to start with. Chemical science has developed very quickly, and just before the Armistice gas-bombs were improved and we had produced a gas so effective that if 5 per cent. of it was mixed with 100 per cent. of the atmosphere it proved fatal. The next time instead of thirty-five machines we might have 350 or 3,000. We have to realise that you can now go to Cologne in an aeroplane in 3½ hours, and it would take that time to walk to Woolwich. What would be the feeling of our people if an enemy Infantry occupied Woolwich? There would be a tremendous outcry and a demand that our defences should be made adequate. I think we should treat this subject of dealing with air warfare from an air point of view. I think the greatest point of all is that in maintaining the Air Force you are maintaining a great prestige and preserving the air spirit. Those pilots who fell on British service have laid a tradition which is the envy of the world, and everything we do now should be with the idea of doing something to follow up that wonderful pioneer work which was done by those gallant officers, and in the hands of the present Secretary of State for War their memory
is in very safe keeping. I know the great personal interest which the right hon. Gentleman takes in this subject, but there is just a danger that we may consider questions of economy a little bit too much in regard to the Air Force and its civil aspect.
When the War came to an end we had eleven squadrons of aeroplanes with the necessary landing grounds and lighting stations in the vicinity of London. We bad a special telephone service and listening posts, and two or three barrages of searchlights. We also had 280 anti-aircraft guns situated at suitable points, and, incidentally, I may mention that most of those points have been dug up, and who is to know where they were? I suggest that, at any rate, the concrete foundations might he retained and a cheap post put up announcing, "From this place guns were fired to destroy the aeroplanes of the enemy." Altogether we had 30,000 men on this establishment. Of course, you cannot depend altogether on anti-aircraft gunfire, and you must meet like with like.
I think it is equally important to realise the state of affairs with regard to aeroplanes at the time of the Armistice. Germany on the 11th November had 4,000 machines on the Western Front; and in reserve and in depots and at schools she had 14,000 machines, and the output in Germany was estimated at 1,000 machines per month. Marshal Foch's terms were that Germany should surrender 1,700 machines to us. Of course, the French took their quota. but that leaves, at any rate, 8,000 machines unaccounted for. I think we should have demanded more aeroplanes and prevented the Germans from doing what the latest evidence shows they are doing—developing civil aviation. They have now 7.000 miles of aerial routes with lighting arrangements and definite transport services. This has been done to foster the power of striking by the air, and they are at the same tine assisting their commercial industries. Whether it is adequate to devote £15,000,000 in a normal year towards the Air Service is a question not for political chiefs but for the Joint Imperial General Staff to decide, and the sooner that is formed the sooner we shall get a really satisfactory answer to these questions. In the meantime, I would urge most respectfully that the Secretary of State for Air shold endeavour to help us in regard to the Air Force reserves. We
must look at this question with the experience that the War has given us and remember that a large number of skilled men are required. There is nothing to show in the Estimates in this respect except the paltry sum of £30,000
What ate the definite arrangements that have been made to encourage those who serve in the Air Force to be ready to man these machines which we hope the Government will keep in being, either by a direct subsidy or otherwise? If we do this I am perfectly sure this Debate will be looked back upon favourably and they will say, "Those people appreciated what the air held in its possession for the future." The growth of the British Navy came from very small beginnings. We have come out of this War absolutely on top on land just as we did on the sea, and I believe we have a greater future in store in the air if we will guide ourselves not by petty Service jealousies and discussions but by a comprehension of the possibilities of the future of the air. I believe that we must have complete independence of the Air Force and a Minister who is imbued with the air spirit. If we have that neither the Army nor the Navy will have anything to fear; but I doubt if any man, no matter how great his ability or capacity, will in a few years be able to contemplate looking after the developments that will undoubtedly fall to the Air Ministry and their officers. In that Memorandum issued by Sir II. Trenchard there is no mention of the civil side, but surely we must read all these Reports together. There is the Report of the Controller-General of Civil Aviation and the Chief of the Air Staff, and I think the absence of an Under-Secretary at the Air Ministry has possibly made it difficult for those who have not studied the subject to appreciate that the civil side has a very direct and special value, in regard to the military side.

6.0 P.M.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: We have had so many suggestions made to us that I am getting a little bit confused. We have had the right hon. and gallant 6.0 P.M. Member for the Ilkeston Division (Major-General Seely) who wishes to have a Minister of Air with control of all the three forces, Independent, Army, and Naval; we have, as a fact, the Minister for War, who is also the Minister for Air; and now we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) advocating that the Admiralty should have the whole thing in their hands. We have also
had references to a General Staff, to a Ministry of Defence, and so on. I say at once that the Navy do not on any account want to have control of the Independent Air Force, nor of that which is associated with the Army. we are much more modest. All that we ask for is that we may manage our own little business. The Naval Air Force, I claim, is distinct and should be part and parcel of the Navy itself, and should never be dissociated from it as it was even in the Royal Naval Air Service. We want it manned primarily by naval officers and seamen. I should like to refer to this most admirable statement of Sir Hugh Trenchard. He says:
The principle to be kept in mind in forming the framework of the Air Service is that in the future the main portion of it will consist of an independent force, together with Service personnel required in carrying out aeronautical research… It may be that the main portion. the Independent Air Force, will grow larger and larger, and become more and more the predominating factor in all types of warfare.
That is an admirable enunciation. There must be an absolutely independent force. The whole atmosphere of the air is open to it, but it has nothing to do with the Navy. Then, to show that he really appreciates the necessity for some other force, in fact, for two other distinct forces, I go on and find that the Chief of the Staff says:
In addition there will be a small part of it specially trained for work with the Navy, and a small part specially trained for work with the Army, these two small portions probably becoming in the future an arm of the older Services.
If they have to be an arm of the older Services we had better start making them at once, leaving the purely naval force and the evolution of it to the people who understand the application of it to the Navy itself. It seems to me that the Chief of the Staff thoroughly understands the situation. He advocates, just as I do myself, three forces, and I cannot help thinking that he is absolutely right. An Air Force to-day is an absolutely essential constituent part of the Navy. We cannot do without it at the present time. In addressing the House the other day on the Navy Estimates I detailed, not all, but nearly all, the duties that the Naval Air Service had to do, and I showed that they were purely Naval matters and could only be done by Naval men. The evolution of the Navy of the future out of this nucleus or embryo force can only be dealt with by the Admiralty. We have heard a great
deal about the Navy of the future. Some people want to destroy it offhand, and others are a little more modest. There are those who say that it can no longer exist on the surface or as surface-borne ships. There is that very well-known officer who has been quoted several times who states that presently we shall have aerial armed battleships. It is quite possible that we may have all sorts of aircraft, but there is this about every type of aircraft, that nine-tenths of its time is spent either on the land or on the sea. Therefore, any Naval aircraft, whether it be a battleship or something else, should be manned by seamen, manned by men who are seamen first and aviators secondly.
The deciding factor as to whether there will be a Navy in the future such as we understand it now is this. The trade and the traffic of the country will go on for ever in surface sea-borne ships, for the very simple reason that no aircraft can possibly compete with them economically. when R34 new over to America she could not carry another pound of ten, and when the aeroplane flew back from Newfoundland, with the wind behind her, she was so laden with fuel, petrol, nautical instruments and all the paraphernalia necessary for the voyage that she could hardly get off the ground. I am convinced, therefore, that the surface sea-borne ship will never be replaced by aircraft, though, of course, aircraft may supplant them for urgent business men, joy riders, and the carrying of samples and that sort of thing. Any development in aircraft connected with design, motive power, or fuel most assuredly will be only contemporaneous with similar developments in surface seaborne ships. In fact, we have now surface-borne craft steaming or travelling along the surface of the water at the rate of 71 miles per hour. Heaven only knows what they are going to do in the future. If the Mercantile Marine is to continue, as obviously it is, then the fighting Marine and the Navy will go on too. Forty years ago the Navy was going to be knocked out of existence by the Whitehead torpedo. It has not yet been knocked out of existence. Somebody has talked about battleships not being able to use the North Sea. They were recently cruising about the North Sea not in the least afraid of submarines. I know of the case of a big cruiser, fitted with these blisters that they are now using—a sort of bladder attachment on each side of the ship—which was torpedoed, and which steamed faster after
she had been torpedoed than she did before. That is a fact. The menace of the torpedo is no longer a menace, and most assuredly the menace of the air will become no menace at all. I do not say that we are to go on building battleships at £6,000,000 each, as we have been doing, but their will remain large surface-fighting ships, fitted with some arrangement by which they will be able to keep off any bombs which any aircraft can drop I am not in the least afraid of the further existence of the Navy. I am not recommending the building of battleships at the present time. we must wait and see what are the possibilities of the future. I believe that in a very short time there will be craft, perhaps as big as a destroyer, normally floating on the sea, and steaming at a high speed, perhaps getting up to 70 miles per hour, as I mentioned just now, but when the occasion arises spreading her wings and travelling 150 miles per hour through the air. I foresee that, though I admit it may not be in my lifetime, but I do not foresee a battleship aircraft.
I have mentioned the sort of craft which I really think is feasible, but I would ask who could possibly evolve such craft other than naval constructors, and, seeing that nine-tenths of their time they must be on the sea, who is going to man them except seamen, and, if they are to be evolved by naval constructors and manned by seamen, who can administer them other than the Admiralty? It would be really ridiculous to leave it to the Air Ministry, constituted as it is at present, to evolve such craft or to administer the personnel of them. We must look to the future, and it is of the future rather than the present that I am thinking. I say most emphatically that if the future Naval Air Service, including such aircraft as I have mentioned, be left to the Air Ministry, we shall not make that progress that we should make. we have always led in maritime matters. This is a maritime matter, and it is for us to lead. This little Air Service that we have at present, these flying boats that are specified in Sir Hugh Trenchard's statement, constitute the embryo Service, but it is not what it should be. I do not want to repeat anything that I said on Wednesday night, but I found fault with the Admiralty, and pretty severely, too, for tolerating the lack of progress in the Naval Air Service in the last three or four years. The Admiralty are to blame for allowing it, but the actual cause is the incompetence
of the Air Ministry to deal with naval matters. I do not use the word "incompetence" in any offensive sense; I simply mean that they are not men fitted for the purpose. They cannot understand what is required in maritime matters. I blame the Navy itself. It has never properly appreciated, until quite recently, what this Air Service is to-day. I blame the Admiralty and the Navy, and I repeat that had the Navy had its own Air Service in the past four years we might have destroyed the German Flect at Wilhelmshaven long before the Armistice. Had it been properly fostered instead of being treated as a child that result might have come about. A little illustration of the incapacity of a most gallant aviator who was a soldier to appreciate what naval aviation duties are was recently given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member For Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) when he referred to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) as an amateur. I know the Member for. Leith has done some gallant work, but he has not done the duties I have enumerated, neither is he competent to do them. I really think I have said enough on this question. My object has been to bring home to the Committee the fact that the Air Ministry are not competent to deal wih the naval side of the question. The Chief of the Staff foresees that it will be a separate arm. It is a separate arm already, and its development as such must start at once under the auspices and direction of the Admiralty alone.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I listened with great interest to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said, and it is with the points he has raised I shall attempt to deal first. I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point was that the Admiralty should run the whole Air Service or that it should run the part which belongs to the Navy—

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I commenced by saying that on no account did we want anything to do with the other branch of the Air Service.

Captain BENN: And that is exactly the weakness of the hon. and gallant Member's whole case. If such a misfortune were to happen as that we were to hand over to the Admiralty a part of the Flying Corps, that force would be amputated in a way which would produce atrophy and even death. There is no question about that.
I think it was the Lord President of the Council who stated that we wanted a real service of our own, but a phrase of that kind is anathema to anybody who knows anything about service in the air. The future of the Air Service, both in peace and in war, is involved in this. Let me ask another question. If we were to amputate part of the Air Service and put it under the charge of the Admiralty what about the reserve of officers to start with? The hon. and gallant Member says that the only man who can fly a flying boat is a seaman, because the flying boat spends most of its time on the surface of the water. It is true it does, but it seems to me carrying the argument a little too far to suggest that because a flying boat spends most of its time at its moorings therefore the only man who can conduct it to its proper element is a seaman. Such an argument hardly bears close examination. If you had an amputated service what about the reserve? You would have a reserve of officers to start with with a capacity to fly a particular type of machine, but being absolutely committed to a particular type they would rapidly become far below the ordinary standard of air pilotage which prevailed at the time.
And what about the reserve of machines? The hon. and gallant Admiral seemed to think that there was some special type of machine that was set apart for the service of the Navy. But that is not the case in the least, and when the time comes that you can successfully land as well as launch a machine from a ship—and I am not quite certain how far that is possible now, but the time will come when it can be done with perfect ease—then what is the possible difference between the scout that goes up to defend the naval machine and the one that goes up to defend the land bases? Were the hon. and gallant Admiral's suggestions to be accepted it would mean this, that you would get a type of pilot acquainted with a certain kind of machine only. Everybody who has had practical experience of the Service knows that you get locad prejudices. At one air station they are all in favour of the F.3.A. boat; while at another they, say you cannot beat the Sopwith seaplane. There are all these local Prejudices as well as fears, and the only way to overcome them is to send some stunt man to the station to show what is possible to be done. It is one of the
dangers in designing types of aeroplanes to give way to pilots' prejudices, for the pilot is not always a very safe guide as to the best type of machine to take the air, valuable as his practical views, generally speaking, may be. It really would be an awful thing for the Air Service if any such suggestion were even tampered with, or if you were to cherish for one instant the idea that you can take away part of the service and attach it permanently to the Navy.
The hon. and gallant Admiral made some charming remarks about the work of the Air Force and what was done by these machines. But he suggests that, because the machine goes up from a ship or from the water, therefore the work in connection with it must obviously be done by seamen or someone connected with the ship. Is that so? Someone has to fly the machine, and that is not a seaman's job, which can be learned on board a ship. Then there is the question of the wireless. A certain amount of knowledge of the Morse code, and so on, might be learnt in the signal cabin of the ship, but the wireless of the airship is a simpler and lighter thing than that used on board. Then there are the questions of dropping bombs, using sights, and the calculation of drift, and service on board ship does not teach these things. Further, there is the question of aerial photography, and there is nothing in the duty of a seaman which specially qualifies him for that. Most important of all, there is the defence if the machine. I wish I knew more about this myself, but I do not think it is usual to have Lewis guns on battleships. True, they may be used there and the actual mechanical part might be taught on board the ship, but the firing of Lewis guns in the air is something absolutely different from firing them on board ship, seeing that you have to take into account the unknown speeds and differing direction of both the target and the attacking plane; all that is obviously different from firing a Lewis gun on board a ship.
I understand that the Air Minister has no intention whatever of dividing the force. That, I take it, was the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman. I was reading in the book by Lord Fisher a statement which applies admirably to the Air Service. It is in the staccato style, of [...] the Noble Lord is a master, and he says:
On general principles the Admiralty should never engage itself in locking up a single vessel.
not even a torpedo boat or submarine anywhere on any consideration. The whole principle of sea fighting is to be free to go anywhere, with everything that the Navy possesses.
I venture to suggest that that principle of sea fighting enunciated by that great Admiral, is absolutely sound and applicable equally to air fighting. There are certain parallels that can be drawn between the Air Service and the Navy—the capacity to strike a blow at the right spot swiftly and surely. That is one of the most important powers the Air Service can possess. In the speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty the other night, it seemed to me there was not a sufficient note of certainty on this point of separation. I believe the determination of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Churchill) is fixed that they will not have the Service divided. The First Lord of the Admiralty, instead of saying "We will not have the Service divided," made a speech which I think was rather involved, and did not contain the assurance which we wanted, and the result is that in the various messes of the squadrons there still goes on all this talk about dividing the force; they say that one day the Naval Air Service will come back again to the Navy. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely in his speech to-night that nothing of the kind is contemplated.
If that is not done, how is it possible to get in the Air Force that thing which is absolutely necessary, namely, esprit de corps. I agree with the hon. and gallant Admiral in what he said about the dual capacity of the right hon. Gentleman. It subordinates the Air Service to put a small and junior service into the hands of a Minister whose obvious main interest clearly enters into the senior Service. It does subordinate the Air Service, and therefore I am totally opposed to that system, and I shall go into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend, not out of admiration for the gifts of the right hon. Gentleman, because I am opposed to him on many occasions by reason of those very gifts—his wonderful imagination and driving force, and his services to the Air Force are a matter of history—but I shall go into the Lobby, because we want to get a united Air Service, with a proper esprit de corps. We often talk about the Nelson touch. Why not have for the Air Service a McCubbin touch, or a Bishop touch? That would give the necessary esprit de corps.
There are one or two other matters I wish to touch upon. I would refer first to the recruitment of officers for the Air Force. I have followed with some interest this subject, and I read with great satisfaction the Memorandum issued in regard to it, but there is one matter on which I am not satisfied. I believe the Air Force should be a democratic Force. You want to select your men in order to get the qualities that go to make good pilots, and you should have the whole field open fur that purpose, and not allow anything to restrict your choice. I understand the plan of the Air Ministry to be to select boys who have passed through public schools. I believe they have rejected the plan for taking boys at thirteen—the Osborne or Selborne scheme—and have put that aside in favour of taking boys from public schools, because they say that public school education gives a boy a certain amount of "savvy." or self-confidence which is so reqnisite for the handling of machines in the air. That may be true. I do not know whether it is so or not. But the difficulty is this: If you restrict your boys to boys who come from public schools you limit the choice to boys of a certain social class. It is not every parent who can afford to keep his boy at a public school till he is sixteen or seventeen.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There will be promotion from the ranks—from the me chanics, and so on.

Captain BENN: Personally, I do not think promotion from the ranks meets the case. My experience is that people promoted from the ranks never have the status of the officers who have entered direct. They are usually pushed into administrative or other jobs. At any rate that is my view, and I think that the field should be absolutely open for boys to enter exactly on a parity from all social classes. The history of the War has shown that, although all classes contributed very nobly, by no means all the most brilliant pilots have been chosen from the class of boys to whom the whole thing would be restricted if such a plan were adopted. Here. again. I fortify myself with quotations from Lord Fisher. Lord Fisher's experience in this matter of the training of [...] for the fighting services is unique, and he gave us some very fine officers to fight during the War. He points out that the career must be open to the talents, and his last comment is:
I gave up one thing, which was the real democratic pith and marrow—the free education of the naval officer and a competence from the moment of entry, open to all.
I do not think this would involve any great expense, as the number of entries would be small. I think it is due to the contribution of all classes to the War, and to our desire to maintain our undoubted supremacy in the air, that the net should be cast very wide, and that considerations due to his parents' income should not prevent the entry of a boy who might turn out to be a brilliant member of the force.
There is one other point that I want to emphasise. I think there is too much tendency in the Air Force to exalt the pilot at the expense of the science—I am using the words in the broadest sense. The man who is a stunt flyer and can perform in the air is apt, especially among the community, to get a predominance which is not altogether good for the Service. What is required is more the man who corresponds to the engineer in the Navy, the man who takes an interest in the scientific side of his work. The difficulty of these men, whether they are experienced in wireless, in photography, or in gunnery, is to get into the air. Immediately they appear on the aerodrome, decked out in their jackets, with bundles of things under their arms, a universal groan goes up from the pilots, and they inquire, "What is the weight of it?" "How long do you want to stay up?" and so on, and it is a very uphill job for an enthusiast, who might make valuable contributions to the scientific advance of the Service, to get into the air in a physical as well as in a metaphorical sense. And when he gets up, the pilot is always very bored with the whole job, and keeps on saying, "Well, we must go down now; the revolutions are not right; the oil pressure is falling; we had better go back on to the ground." In the future, I understand, all officers are to learn to fly, and I think that is perfectly right. Everyone who goes into the air should be able to support himself in the air and fly. But I do urge the. right hon. Gentleman to resist any tendency to separate the flying part from the scientific part, because I think the future of the Service does absolutely depend upon its being a Service of enthusiastic scientists, men who see that every advance must depend, not on their increasing skill with the joy stick, but on their
increasing knowledge of the scientific application of inventions to the Air Service.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question, in conclusion, on this general Debate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Glyn), who spoke earlier in the Debate, asked about the amount allocated to civil aviation. I have gone through the Estimates very carefully, and as far as I can make out there is £50,000 for the civil route from Egypt to India; £38,000 for the Department itself; £25,000 for rewards for inventions. For supply and research no figure is named. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why that is so? So far as I can make out there is less than £100,000 in the Estimates for the development of civil aviation. I may be wrong, but I certainly think that is very small, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the wrong way to go to work. What he seems to be doing is supplying us with a moderate Air Force of an accepted type, and leaving us very ill supplied with the means of developing new types. I make bold to say that, three months after the outbreak of any future war, if such a misfortune were to occur, most of the material of the Air Ministry would be absolutely out of date. Certainly three months after the outbreak of this War nearly all the material was out of date. There is only one type of machine which is an Army machine pure and simple, and that is the single seater scout. It may be used as a sports machine, but, it is really a military type, and, as regards the adaptation of engines and various scientific discoveries to the scout, I quite agree that it is a purely military thing. But, as regards the bomber, the two-seater or three-seater, or the machine that in future will carry five, fifty, or a hundred men and land them to form an outpost on the other side of the enemy's lines—these must be the outcome of the civilian type. People may say, "what about the Navy? The Navy has to design all its own warships." But the problems in the air at the present time are not so much fighting problems as flying problems. The matters in which we may look for some development are increase of speed, increase of engine power—or diminished weight of engines as compared with horse-power—increased flying, and so forth. All these things can be developed by the civilian aviator, and everything that he finds out will be avail-
able at the outbreak of any future war for the service of the military forces. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the real course to pursue is not to standardise. It is quite obvious that, with the money at his disposal, he cannot possibly carry out the whole of the work of defence and the design of machines. I suggest, therefore, that his real course would be not to standardise a type which is already obsolescent—every type is obsolescent the moment it gets into the air—but rather to devote less money to that, and more to the encouragement of the civilian inventor. so that all the products of his labour and ingenuity may be at the service of this country if it be ever necessary to put them into the air on a war footing.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This Debate has been both peculiar and agreeable. It has been peculiar from the fact that it has taken a very different course from that on which it was originally launched by my right hon. and gallant Friend who opened it, and from the fact that out of, I think, seven speakers, five—I am not sure I should not be right in saying six—have all propounded different schemes for the location of the Air Force in our general defensive organisation, or for the general organisation of our defensive Services. First of all, there was my right hon. and gallant Friend, whose policy is perfectly clear. He wishes to take the Air Force away from the Army. But there sat beside him on that bench the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who uprose and employed an argument of great vigour to show that it should be taken away from the Army only to be put under the Navy—thereby countering my right hon. and gallant Friend on all his arguments as to the impossibility of one man doing two jobs, and of placing the Air Force in helotage to some other more powerful Service. Then we had the gallant Admiral the Member for the Shettleston Division of Glasgow, whose idea is that the Air Force should be split into three—that there should be three separate Air Forces, one for the Army, one independent, and one Naval Air Force—a proposal for which he was very properly and soundly rebuked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn), who spoke last. We have had, too, a very interesting and suggestive speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling
(Major Glyn), who, as I gathered from his statement, is in favour of the general organisation of the three forces in the ambit of one single Ministry of Defence, supported by a Joint Imperial Staff. Amid all these divergent points of view, so powerfully argued, so ingeniously framed and so eloquently expressed, I seem to have escaped from the direct pursuit which my right hon. and gallant Friend had intended to set upon my heels. That is why I say the Debate, as well as being peculiar, has been agreeable.
If I do not immediately embark upon an examination of these elaborate questions of government of the various defensive forces, I hope that those who have taken part in the discussion will not think it is because I do not consider them important and interesting, but for the moment I feel it to be my duty to recall the Committee to some of the more immediately practical issues and questions with which, in Committee of Supply, we have to deal. First of all, I would like to refer to the financial aspect, because we have heard a great deal of it at one time or other in the Session, and it is surprising that it should never have been mentioned at all during the course of this Debate.

Mr. LAMBERT: I said you would have a crowded House later on finance.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true that my right hon. Friend referred to finance in those general terms, but I think he did not address himself at all to the figures of the Estimate, and, after all, they are important and interesting. In March, Air Estimates were presented of approximately £66,500,000, and the present Estimate is for £54,000,000, so that there is an apparent reduction of £12,500,000. I say "apparent" advisedly, because £11,250,000 out of those,£12,500,000 are transferred bodily from the charges of the Air Ministry to those of the Ministry of Munitions, and the actual net saving to the public on the new Estimates over the old is only £1,250,000. I am very anxious that the House should clearly understand exactly what the position is, and should not think that we are in any way trying to mislead them as to the actual financial position. This £150,000,000 would have been greater by £2,000,000 if the airships had remained on the Admiralty Vote. We have had put on our charge £2,000,000 for airships which otherwise would have figured on the Admiralty Vote. Therefore the total net actual saving on the Air Estimates as now
presented is £3,250,000. To this may be added a further almost certain saving on the Ministry of Munitions Vote through not going on with contracts instead of taking delivery of machines. That is to say, that owing to the reduction in the demand we are wiping out contracts by compensation instead of by taking delivery, as was done the first few months after the Armistice. It is probable that the reduction will at least amount to £3,000,000, and it may be more; so that the total benefit to the Exchequer is in the neighbourhood of £6,250,000, to which may be added the £400,000 which my right hon. Friend was able to secure by his judicious sale of one of our airships to the United States, and possibly by other sales which are in contemplation and which were not foreseen when the Estimates were originally introduced. Therefore, the saving is not £12,500,000, but the public may consider it is better off by the changes which have taken place by something between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000.
These Estimates which are now laid for the Army and for the Air Force are not the Estimates for next year. They are the Estimates for last year, which ought to have been presented in March. It was not possible to prepare them, and I promised that both Estimates should be laid before the end of the year. I am doing this in fulfilment of my pledge. But, of course, we are only separated by a few months from the time when the new Estimates will be introduced. By the end of February or the beginning of March whoever represents these Departments will lay the new Estimates before the House, and there will be a long series of opportunities of Debate and discussion on all matters connected with Air and Army policy. I shall reserve till then the task of making a full statement on the Army. I am sure the Committee will accord me the latitude of waiting till a regular and proper occasion arrives to untold the scheme, which is now very far advanced, for a permanent post-war Army. I hope to do so in full detail and to lay the finance wholly before the Committee. The days of the looseness and uncertainty inseparable from war Estimates have passed, and the Committee has the right on the Air and on the Army next year to expect a punctual and detailed Statement in advance of all expenditure to be incurred during the currency of the year.

Major-General SEELY: Did the right hon. Gentleman say in error the post-war Army, or did he mean the post-war Air Force?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, the post-war Army Although I propose to ask this latitude in regard to the Army I think it desirable to have published a full outline of the new scheme for the permanent postwar Air Force which has already been laid before the house. The post-war Air Force is much further advanced in shape than either the Army or the post-war Navy. This scheme has been worked during the year in considerable elaboration, and although I might legitimately claim an opportunity of delay until the Estimates are presented this year, there has been so much nagging at the Air Force and so much uncertainty caused by the various criticisms which have been made that I thought it was desirable at the earliest possible moment to let a full statement be made which will show exactly where we stand in regard to this force in the immediate future. The Estimates of 1918–19 for the Air aggregated £370,000,000, including the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions for aircraft. In 1919–20 they have fallen to £54,000,000, and the limit which the Cabinet has approved for the framing of the Air Force Estimate next year is approximately £15,000,000, so that whatever else may be said, a very great reduction is being affected in the scale of our expenditure. Discount it as you will, criticise it as you may, the fact remains that the whole standing of the Air Force has been in the currency of the present year reduced from its great War level of expenditure at more than £1,000,000 a day to an expenditure which will not exceed, in 1920–21, £15,000,000. These financial considerations are very necessary to bear in mind. But this scheme which has been prepared by the Chief of the Air Staff, working for a long period of time in collaboration with some of the other able officers who under his leadership rose to eminence in the War, has been commented upon with favour by practically every hon. Member who has spoken to-day.
I hope the Committee will not underrate the very considerable merit of the achievement accomplished in elaborating that scheme. During the present year the Air Force has had to be reduced from an enormous war organisation, rapidly expanded in every direction, down to almost nothing, and a modest, compact, perma-
nent peace-time Air Force is being erected out of and upon its ruins. Whereas the Army and the Navy both had permanent pre-war structures to fall back upon and reduce down to, and were strongly organised and established on that basis, the Air Force had nothing at all except its emergency war organisation. At the same time a double element of uncertainty was playing over the whole field, namely, uncertainty as to the rate at which the German and Turkish situations would allow demobilisation to be carried out, and, secondly, uncertainty as to how much money would be allocated for the permanent post-war Air Force. It was inevitable during this period of arrest, of dissolution, of uncertainty, and of reconstruction, that everyone should feel disquieted and uncomfortable. The Air Ministry had not only to work out plans for the future in all their detailed complexity, but they had to have two or three sets of alternative plans carried forward simultaneously through all their variations and complications, so as to be ready to come forward with a complete scheme at an early date, in accordance with whatever scale of Air Force was ultimately sanctioned by the Cabinet. I confided this task to Air-Marshal Trenchard, and with his staff he has been engaged during the last three or four months on its execution. Early in October the Cabinet definitely approved a permanent organisation for the Royal Air Force on a scale of approximately £15,000,000 a year, of which the Indian charges will be borne by India. This organisation has now been elaborated in full detail, and every move in demobilisation, the transfer of stores, surrender of aerodromes, etc., has for some time past been made in direct relation thereto. The full organisation will, of course, be laid before the House when the Air Estimates for next year are produced. Meanwhile, we claim the fullest liberty within the ambit of the scheme now presented to make such variations, refinements and improvements as further experience and study may suggest. But the central principle which has always been followed throughout this year has been the maintenance of the independent status and identity of the Royal Air Force, and, secondly, the gathering to the Royal Air Force of all those elements necessary for its permanent integral existence. Every step, in fact, has been taken on the basis of their being three separate
independent Services for sea, land, and air, respectively, capable of forming part of a higher organisation of Imperial defence as a whole, and no step inconsistent with this ideal has been allowed. Differences of uniform, decorations, etc., have been preserved by the Royal Air Force. A new set of ranks and titles, specially devised because they were distinct, as far as ingenuity could make them, from those in current use in the Army and Navy, have been brought into force.
Everything possible has been done to strengthen the Air Ministry and lend body to the Air Force. The Technical Department of the Ministry of Munitions has been transferred from the Ministry of Munitions to the Royal Air Force. Anyone who knows what is involved in that will realise how vitally important it was for the future independent organisation of the Air Service that this Technical Department should so be transferred. The meteorological research has been assigned definitely to the Air Ministry. Civil aviation has been rescued from the ambitions of the Ministry of Transport or the Board of Trade and definitely assigned to the Air Ministry. All the course of the present year has, in fact, been occupied in building up by every means a separate independent Royal Air Force and in making an organisation which will effectively prevent any future combining up of the Air Service between the Army and the Navy. My hon. and gallant Friend asked for a special assurance on that point, and I am glad to give it him so far as I and the Government are concerned, who are now responsible for the direction of affairs. We are moving forward with the scheme outlined by Sir Hugh Trenchard in his Memorandum in such a way as to make it extraordinarily difficult at a later stage to make any of those disruptive decisions which would bring the Air Force into two separate, subsidiary branches of the Army and the Navy, which would be fatal to the development of the air spirit and of the Air Force as a great new arm. We are rapidly reaching a position which will make it almost impossible to arrive at a change without the greatest amount of waste and expense should it be decided upon. It will take, approximately, five years to bring the permanent post-war Air Force into the same kind of running order as were the pre-war Army and Navy. I do not mean that the
scheme will not be carried out and brought into action very rapidly, but before you can have an Air Force running in a smooth, regular way as a permanent and long—established Service, in my opinion three, four, or five years will be required of continuous work in pursuit of a definite line of advance. Estimates have, accordingly, been worked out not for one year only, but for five years, subject, of course, to such modifications as may be found desirable. I think it is very likely that I shall adopt the same method in regard to the Army Estimates, but there I deal with a larger and much more complex subject. I do not pledge myself to it altogether, but I am not without hope that it may be possible to lay before Parliament in the course of the next three months, when the Estimates for 1920 are published, a tabloid of expenditure which will cover one year and indicate in general limits what the size is likely to be over the lustra.
7.0 P.M.
The Royal Air Force is in want of practically every permanent institution of a disciplined Service. No Service has ever approached it in complexity. Nearly every trade and every science finds its part in aerial warfare. Even the complexities of the modern battleship, with all its technical departments grouped together in its vast machinery, falls far short in number and in delicacy of the subsidiary services which are essential to an efficient Air Force. Therefore, at the outset schools, colleges, training centres, experimental establishments of many different kinds have to be called into being and organised. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) thinks that because the Navy will not be training for the next two years so many officers as it was before the War there will be a certain a umber of beds vacant at Dartmouth and Osborne, and he thinks that these extra places in the class rooms and the vacant beds in the dormitories may be made the birthplace, the cradle of this great new Air Force of the future.

Mr. LAMBERT: The right hon. Gentleman is totally misrepresenting my argument. My argument was this, had the War Office in estimating for the future of this Naval Air Force, taken into account that the Navy must be largely reduced in numbers. Do they propose to spend an enormous sum on buildings when these buildings may be ready to their hand from the Admiralty? Further, has this Memorandum of Sir Hugh Trenchard's re-
ceived the approval of the Board of Admiralty in regard to naval offence and defence in the future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will deal with the last point when I come to it in the argument. I do not think my right hon. Friend's suggestion is practicable. The Air Force must have establishments of its own. I do not think you will ever build up a proper Air Force if you are to occupy any spare accommodation which may be found from time to time available in buildings at Dartmouth or elsewhere. I do not remember in the year immediately preceding the War—I am speaking from memory—that there was any very large addition to Dartmouth. I think there was none. I dealt in those days with extensions by means of the public school entries, who were trained on board ships specially organised. I do not think we went into any large extension in the way of bricks and mortar at Dartmouth.

Mr. LAMBERT: Oh, yes.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has a unique experience, because he was at the Admiralty for ten years. Therefore, I will not challenge him, but I do not think there was any large extension. At any rate, I am quite certain that the contraction in the Navy, while it may leave unoccupied some portion of some wing or annexe of these colleges at the time, just as the contraction at Sandhurst will leave some portion of the building not, fully occupied, that contraction will not enable us to get there the schools or the class rooms required for the Air Force. If I am not converting my right hon. Friend by these observations, I may perhaps safely entrust the rest of the, process to the right hon. Gentleman (General Seely) or to my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Wedgwood Benn). They will complete the work which I have left undone. -We have to have these establishments for the Air Force. If it is to be a real living thing, it has to have its proper plant and accommodation in which it can settle down. The cadets have to be trained to be officers, and the officers have to be trained in the different specialised branches of their profession, and those branches involve the studying of the special needs of the Army, the Navy, and the Independent Service. The very list of schools and training centres, which is attached to the
paper which has been published, which have to be created will show in a comprehensive and impressive way the complexity of the tasks which Sir Hugh Trenchard has had placed upon him. Officers have, further, to be trained to become air staff officers, to understand not only air warfare as such but air warfare in combination both with the special and general requirements of the Army and the Navy. Mechanics have to be trained from boys upwards in all the different trades, some highly scientific trades, on whose trustworthiness the Air Service depends for its efficiency and the flying men for their lives. Fortunately, there is at the present time no lack of centres where new establishments can be set up. There are many enormous war plants which were called into being all over the country, and the task has been to select according to some concerted plan the best and most convenient centres for the Royal Air Force. At Cranwell we shall have the Air Force Sandhurst. At Halton there will be the Air Force staff. At Halton also there will be the main training establishments for mechanics and artificers, similar to those which the Navy had before the War on board certain ships. The photographic establishments will be at Farnborough, and the main wireless schools at Flower-down. The gunnery school will be at Eastchurch. There will also be a navigation school There will be three store depots and two aircraft repairing depots, one at Kidbrook, and the other at Donnibristle. All these establishments exist at the present time. The land is there and the roads are there, and an enormous amount of work has been done. The buildings are there, but although the centres are available the buildings are in nearly every case either lacking in completeness, or of the most flimsy wartime character.
It is quite impossible to maintain a permanent service in healthy discipline without that reasonable degree of comfort which can only be afforded by permanent habitation. During the next three years we have, therefore, to spend a considerable proportion of our limited funds available for maintaining the Air Force on bricks and mortar. That is to say, we have to replace the temporary buildings which can be used at the present time by permanent structures which will be satisfactory to the health and comfort of the personnel However, during these same years, it happens fortunately that prac-
tically no new construction of aircraft is required except for experimental purposes. We shall continue repeatedly to experiment in type, each type an improvement upon the other, but we do not require any bulk production in the next two or three years in aircraft. We have left over from the War an enormous accumulation of stores and aircraft. The great accumulation in stores and aircraft enable redactions to be effected in both these Votes. When you look at the Air Force's financial position on the basis of five years, and not on the basis of a single year, the convenience of that method of treating the subject becomes apparent, because it has been found possible to aim at balancing the initial expenditure on housing the Royal Air Force, by the initial saving in regard to stores and equipment arising from our special circumstances. Within that five years the Estimates on the building programme is a constantly dwindling charge, while the technical equipment expenditure rises step by step to maintain on the whole a uniform level of estimate.
The £15,000,000, which is the approximate figure, includes £2,000,000 for research and civil aviation. That amount will be provided for in next year's Estimate. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Wedgwood Benn) asked how much had been actually spent in the present year on civil aviation. We are allocating £500,000 in the present year, and we have spent £329,000 on civil aviation in the present year. That is due largely because plans which had been formed did not fully mature within the compass of this year. Of course nothing would be worse than to try to spend money without obtaining full value for all the money that is spent, and without having a very judicious control over the expenditure.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say with a little more detail how the £300,000 has been spent? I find it difficult to discover it in the Estimate.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I will try at this moment to give that figure in detail, but later on in the discussion I will look it up in the Estimates myself and let my hon. and gallant Friend know. Out of the £15,000,000 we are providing £2,000,000 for research and civil aviation. Here let me deal with those people who say, "It ought to be the other way round. You ought to provide £13,000,000 for research and civil aviation and the other
£2,000,000 should be good enough to manage your military affairs." It is not a fair argument to say that the first charge ought to be civil aviation, and that the military needs should be provided for at a later stage. I must remind hon. Members that we have still an Empire to defend. Odd as it may seem on the morrow of unheard victories, we have all those dependencies and possessions in our hands which existed before the War, and in addition we have large promises of new responsibilities to be placed upon us. The first duty of the Royal Air Force is to garrison the British Empire. Out of the twenty-four and a half fighting squadrons which the Trenchard Memorandum contemplates forming at once, no fewer than nineteen are abroad, or will be stationed abroad. Eight will be in India, seven in Egypt, three in Mesopotamia and one is to be split up between the various naval bases. The maintenance of all these forces permanently abroad, the training of officers and men, the regular circulation of the units on the roster between home and abroad—because we intend to preserve the regimental idea very strongly in regard to the fighting squadrons of the Air Force—all these functions in the Air Force as in the Army will be found to absorb the greater part of the modest sum at our disposal. When to these are added the two fighting squadrons which are all we can maintain at home and the two and a half squadrons which will be working with the Navy, and the one which will be working with the Army—I am supposed to be exceptionally favourable towards the Army as against the Navy; but it will be seen that only one squadron is allocated to the military division as against two and a half allocated to the Navy—the rest of the force will be on independent duty abroad.
When we have considered all those, and the necessary schools and the training and experimental centres and the general establishment charges, the whole of the available sum is absorbed with the exception of this £2,000,000. Necessity has to come first. The Royal Air Force is now reduced to the very minimum in finance which will enable it to discharge its peace-time military functions and to have an integral independent life as a permanent Service. If, therefore, larger sums are required for civil aviation, as some are inclined to demand, additional money must be voted by Parliament.
That must be faced. I do not myself believe that it is the business of the Government to carry civil aviation forward by means of great expenditure of public money. Our business is first of all to do all we can to facilitate the development of civil aviation, to develop the routes and the key aerodromes, to develop the legislation, to assist in all those ways which are open to a Government Department, to advertise and push British civil aviation. But the effort which is to sustain it must be a spontaneous effort arising from the country and the trade, and the best thing we can do in regard to that is to make sure that we do not get in the way of it. I have laid before the Committee three documents in regard to civil aviation—the synopsis of progress and work in the department of civil aviation, the report on the general air routes, and the synopsis of civil aviation in foreign countries, all of which repay study.
I do not propose this evening to embark upon a lengthy statement on this subject. I will reserve that for the Estimates which will be presented in February, as I have so much to say on the military side this evening. But with regard to what my right hon. and gallant Friend said on the subject of civil aviation, we have at the head of civil aviation in General Sykes an extremely competent officer, who is throwing a great deal of personal ability into his task, and I feel with great confidence that his treatment of the problem of civil aviation from the Government point of view will be attended by the same measure of success as has attended Sir Hugh Trenchard's treatment of the military. I think it is a great achievement on the part of Sir Hugh Trenchard to have been able, within the narrow limits assigned to him, to work out a complete scheme which meets all the varying needs and duties with which he and the Royal Air Force were confronted. As to the provision for the Navy very satisfactory relations have been established between the Air staff and the Admiralty. Admiral Beatty in particular has shown that he is a sincere friend and well-wisher of the Royal Air Force. I look forward to the most favourable results from his co-operation. I was sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the other night accused the Admiralty of not asking for enough. I think it was most unjust to make such an accusation and most untrue.

Major-General SEELY: I never made such an accusation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: At any rate it is perfectly true that the Admiralty have not got what they asked for. They asked for a great deal more than they got, and I never remember a time, I rarely remember a subject, on which the Admiralty have not asked for more than they have been able to get. We simply cannot provide the trained mechanics next year, even if the money allowed, to meet all requirements of the Navy any more than we can meet all the requirements of the Army. What we have to do is to get our system established, our training plans at work, to get our establishments in full activity for preparing the personnel of the new force. The scheme which is outlined by the Chief of the Air staff is the most which is physically practicable within the time and limits available. But I give the general assurance that the Air Ministry will do their utmost to study the special needs of the Navy and meet them in every possible way. Those who seem to think that we are immediately on the verge of some enormous development whereby battleships and surface craft will disappear and will be replaced either by a submarine Navy or an Air Force, or a combination of both, must realise that in proportion as such evolution obtains the support of professional opinion, in that very proportion the large funds which are now spent on the construction of a surface Navy will he liberated and be available for the development of additions to the Air Force.
But the task before us is severely practical; we have to find the necessary air garrisons to defend the British Empire, to create a permanent independent Air Force, to offer young officer airmen or mechanics a decent regular life in a good profession to which it is an honour to belong. This is a task which is self-contained and must be discharged quite apart from any theoretical decision either for revolutionising either the art of war or for the combined organisation of the three Services. It would be a great mistake to delay the practical steps which are needed until an entirely new system of defence organisation has been thrashed out and developed. To make it a unit, to make it in a form where it is not only efficient in itself, but will fit into a higher organization—that is the practical task on which we are engaged. But if the Air Force is to be independent of the other two Services it
must also be interdependent upon them. It must be so organised as to fit naturally and easily in peace or war into a combined organisation of defence. It must be that for its own sake, in the interests of the other Services and in the general interests. Take the case of officers of the Air Force, for instance. Every Service must offer a reasonable advancement to young men who enter it, but a boy entering the Air Force ought to have as good a chance as a boy entering the Army or the Navy of making a career for himself. But as the proportion of general officers during the flying period of their lives in the Air Force necessarily exceeds very largely the proportion of higher posts, therefore we have to turn to the two great Services to assist us and we have to adopt a system of temporary commissions. About 50 per cent. of the Air Force will be composed of its own officers in permanent commission, 40 per cent. will be the short-service commissioned officers, and 10 per cent. will be birds of passage from the two other Services. It may be in future years that it will be still further extended.
It is good for us because it reduces protanto the pressure of candidates on the limited number of higher appointments. It is good for the other two Services because it familiarises them with the air, and later on it will give them the higher officers who know the true value of the air arm. It is good for all because it tends to promote that solidarity and unity with regard to defence organisation which is more and more demanded by those who are thinking out these problems, and it tends to eradicate toe absurdity of mere departmental conceptions of war. Meanwhile the Air Force is dependent upon the Army and Navy for a certain proportion of the officers who will be flowing through it. There are certain subsidiary services which the Army and the Air Force can have in common. For instance, we have arranged to have the mapping Department in common. The rations are supplied to the Air Force by the Navy and Army and not purchased direct by the Air Force. The Air Force clothing is bought from the Army Clothing Department at Pimlico. The ordnance is supplied by the Army. The Air Force has its own technical supply, but in these more simple forms of supply there is not the slightest reason why purchasing should not be made through the existing organisation of the Army. The medical service is at present entirely separate. The chaplains' department is separate. It requires careful con-
sideration as to whether it is necessary or proper to continue to duplicate any of these services. All this ground has to be very carefully studied in order—first, to secure the independence of the Air Force; second, not to waste money in duplicating organisation; and, third, not to take any steps inconsistent with the future combinations of the three fighting Services on the basis of common departments for common services. There is no doubt that very large economy and simplification would result from the combined treatment of defence problems, instead of having, for instance, two or three organisations Instead of having two or three organisations for buying meat and bread, you would have one for all. Instead of three finance and contract branches, you would have one for all. Instead of three medical departments, three sets of hospitals, and three chaplains' departments, there would be one. These are very revolutionary ideas, and progress towards them can only be made gradually; but progress towards them must be continued, and nothing must be done in reconstructing the Air Force which in any way conflicts with the final system to which we will certainly be drawn by logic, by economic and by war efficiency, and, in fact, by everything except existing vested interests, namely, a combined general Imperial War Staff for the three Services, actuating and operating under single control. Air power may prove itself—many people declare it has proved itself—a substitute for other more expensive forms of man power or sea power. But it is obvious that any question of such difficulty as substituting one set of developments for another, or increasing air power at the expense of existing forms of naval or military effort, for instance, can only be dealt with upon the advice and through the agency of a combined General Staff who feel impartial as to the method or instrument employed, so long as they are best and the right ones for the country to use. Therefore, I find myself in strong personal sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Major Glyn) in regard to the creation of such a joint staff. I hope that the discussions which are now taking place between the professional heads of the three Services, the First Sea Lord, the Chief of the General Staff, and the Chief of the Air Force, may be productive of real advance in this most urgent and important matter.
Here a word as to the position of the professional head of the fighting Services. I consider that in practice the control of the fighting Services is best exercised through the close cooperation of a Cabinet Minister and the professional head, who should be the principal soldier, the principal sailor, and the principal airman of the day in the fighting Service. As long as that arrangement works well everything works well, and when it breaks down the personality should be changed either in one direction or in another. This close co-operation involves almost daily intercourse between the Minister and the professional heads. It is not possible, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has supposed, for a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to be the intermediary. It is not possible for the Under-Secretary to be the channel of all communications passing between the professional head of the Service and the Minister responsible. It has never been so at the War Office or at the Admiralty. The First Lord must deal with the First Sea Lord; the Secretary of State for War must deal with the Chief of the Imperial General Staff; arid, similarly, whoever holds the seals of the Air Ministry must deal with the chief of the Air Staff. It is the chief of the Air Staff who is the one to insist on his right of direct access to the Minister responsible, for otherwise everything would have to be taken once to the Under-Secretary and then again to the Minister who had to decide.
I have never reproached my right hon Friend. Having held very high offices, as he has dune in the past, and having exercised great responsibilities in peace and in war, it was difficult for him to accept frankly the position of an Under-Secretary. Even long and unbroken friendship could not remove those difficulties. On the other hand, the right of the chief of the Air staff to have access directly to his chief had also to be considered. There was no other solution possible, and no other has been found possible in the War Office or in the Admiralty. Therefore I do not reproach my right hon. Friend. In a fighting Department the first man after the Minister at the head, must necessarily be the professional chief. In the Admiralty it must be the First Sea Lord, and in the War Office the chief of the Imperial General Staff. They must be the second men in the two Departments. I have had very long experience. In fact,
there is no one else who has the experience, in length or variety, which I have of the conduct of these fighting Departments. You may say it has been a varied experience, but I have been learning all the time, and the view I take is this: that the initiative in Service matters must in the main come, and as a general rule comes, from the professional head. He plans, he outlines, he proposes. The Minister examines, criticises, suggests, discusses with his Board or Council, and finally approves. That is the right way. It really is the only way to carry out a military policy. It is not possible for the initiative in such matters to come from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and it would not be fair to the professional head of the Department, nor would it be wise, nor would it work in practice. Just as I think that the initiative should, in the main, come, in the case of air policy from the chief of the Air Service, in the case of the Army from the chief of the General Staff, and in the case of the Navy from the First Sea Lord, so in the three Services together I hope that the initiative for joint action will come from the three heads sitting together, and that as a result of those conferences which are taking place proposals will emerge which will lead to the creation of that Joint Imperial Defence Staff, which at the present time is so indispensable from every point of view.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend in the early part of his speech, with skill and Parliamentary ingenuity, has succeeded in giving the impression to the majority of the Committee that by showing that my right hon. Friend took one point of view and the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) took another, he has disposed of the case laid before the Committee. I think nothing of the kind has happened. He has given no effective answer, nor has the Leader of the House, to the case which was put. The case put was this, that in all these great spending Departments you cannot have efficiency of administration or economy unless you have "one man one job." The argument adduced by the Leader of the House, I understood, was limited to this, that while that might be a very excellent general rule there was one glorious exception, and that was in the case of the Secretary of State for War, that he above all men could do it and nobody else could.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Gladstone.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House. Both Mr. Gladstone and the present Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) found it was impossible, and gave up the hopeless task. I must say a few words as to the financial side of the question. The Secretary for war has taken great credit to himself and to his Department that this is the only one of the three great Services which has effected a reduction, and he has told us, with great frankness, that the real reduction is to £60,000,000. What will an anxious public think when with a shock it comes to know that the Air Force was to be maintained during the current year at an expenditure of £66,000,000, and to what extent will it be satisfied when this splendid campaign of economy has reduced the total to £60,000,000? We know that the anticipation is that next year there will be an expenditure of £15,000,000 only. To my mind that very remarkable drop, which we hope will appear next year, shows that during this year, at any rate, there must have been gross mismanagement and gross extravagance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no !"] I am entitled to my opinion. I think so, and I do not mind telling the Committee that that opinion is very largely shared in the country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must apologise for intervening. I meant to give the figures in my speech. Let us take £15,000,000 as representing a normal year. The difference between that and the present expenditure is £39,000,000. Liquidating war contracts and equipment, apart from the Ministry of Munitions, accounts for £12,000,000; liquidating works, £3,000,000; decrease in maintaining war force above the normal amount accounted for £4,000,000; war gratuities accounted for £5,000,000; the pay of abnormal numbers above what will be maintained next year, due to the military situation, accounts for £12,000,000; minor miscellaneous items account for £3,000,000. That gives a total of £39,000,000, all accountable to pure and definite war charges and war necessities, and not in any way attributable to mismanagement.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Committee is obliged for those figures. I repeat again that it shows there was far too much delay in demobilisation, and no quick grasp of the fact that this great force at its then standard was unnecessary. Useless con-
tracts were gone on with, thousands of men and women were retained quite unnecessarily in the force, and I do not hesitate to say that the late repentance of His Majesty's Government was very largely due to the efforts consistently put forward in this House and supported by the whole House. I will say, in conclusion, that these matters, the gross scandals—I do not hesitate so to describe them—which distinguished the management of the Air Force throughout these

months and this existing year, have given a shock to the moral authority of the Executive of this Government, authority which I hope will be recovered, but which can be recovered only by severe economy and sound business administration.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £3,517,900 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 180.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[7.41 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, J. M.
Seely, Maj. -Gen. Right Hon. John


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E. C.


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Briant, F.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Tootill, Robert


Carter, W. [Mansfield)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wignall, James


Cecll, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Newbould, A. E.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, c.p


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Redmond. Captain William A.



Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Dr


Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton
Murray and Mr. Mosley.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Edgar, Clifford
Knights, Captain H.


Allen, Col. William James
Edge, Captain William
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)


Archdale, Edward M.
Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Lloyd, George Butler


Baird, John Lawrence
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)


Baldwin, Stanley
Falcon, Captain M.
Lonsdale, James R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Lorden, John William


Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lort-Williams, J.


Barnett, Major Richard
Foreman, H.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Barnston, Major H.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lynn, R. J.


Bennett, T. J.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
M'Guffin, Samuel


Betterton, H. B.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Bird, Alfred
Gilbert, James Daniel
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)


Blades, Sir George R.
Gilmour, Lt. -Colonel John
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Borwick, Major G. O.
Glyn, Major R.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowyer, G. W. E.
Goff, Sir Park
Magnus, Sir Philip


Breese, Major C. E.
Greig, Colonel James William
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Bridgeman, William Clive
Griggs, Sir Peter
Martin, A. E.


Briggs, Harold
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Mitchell, William Lane-


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Moles, Thomas


Burn, captain C. R. (Torquay)
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Hancock, John George
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hanna, G. B.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hanson, Sir Charles
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Carr, W. T.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Morris, Richard


Casey, T. W.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Hilder, Lt.-Colonel F.
Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Blrm, W.)
Hinds, John
Neal, Arthur


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hoare, Lt.-Colonel Sir Samuel J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. H. W. S.
Hohler, Henry Fitzroy
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cockerill, Brig. -General G. K.
Howard, Major S. G.
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Parker, James


Colvin, Brig. -General R. B.
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Pearce, Sir William


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Jesson, C.
Perring, William George


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Jodrell, N. P.
Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Johnson, L. S.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jones, Sir Edgar B. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pratt, John William


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Dixon, Captain H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


purchase, H. G.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)
Waring, Major Walter


Raeburn, Sir William
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Rankin, Capt. James S.
Stevens, Marshall
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Raw, Lt.-Colonel Dr. N.
Stewart, Gershom
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Rees, Captain J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)
Sturrock, J. Leng-
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Rowlands, James
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Terrell, Capt R. (Henley, Oxford)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.
Tickler, Thomas George
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Seddon, James
Vickers, D.
Younger, Sir George


Simm, M. T.
Wallace, J.



Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, S.)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wardle, George J.
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Resolutions agreed to.

QUARTERING, STORES (EXCEPT TECHNICAL), SUPPLIES, ANIMALS AND TRANSPORT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,020,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, Animals, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £5,083,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £45,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

Captain BENN: There is an item in this Vote for clothing of £2,195,000, including for the Women's Royal Air Force a sum of £45,000 for clothing. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is a fact that a few days before the demobilisation of the Women's Royal Air Force or a short time before that an entirely new uniform was issued to them. I am in accord with the view that there should be a distinctive uniform, but surely it was unwise to issue a new outfit to the Women's Royal Air Force when it was about to be demobilised.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is true that the final wind up of the Women's Royal Air Force was much more rapid than was at one time contemplated. There was what was, perhaps, a pardonable reluctance to scrap and disband a force which had rendered such admirable service and it led to the view being formed that they would be continued rather longer than was the case. Certain articles of clothing were issued and purchased which, had it been known that they were not to continue, would undoubtedly have been dispensed with. But on the whole the more rapid demobilisation which has taken place has overtaken that expenditure and has provided economy of a different character which on the balance leads to a position of advantage.
Question put, and agreed to.

TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,229,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £16,093,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £45,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

Captain BENN: I desire to ask a question about mechanical transport. It is perfectly obvious that a force like the Air Force must be very mobile, and have a very large amount of big wagons and lighter tenders, and also an amount of personal transport. At the same time one of the temptations of this large amount of transport is that it is too freely used; I am making no charge, but everybody knows that one of the great features in the Air Force was that you always got a motor car. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be possible to have a mobilisation store where the amount of transport which would be needed in demobilisation would be kept available. That would form a check on the use of transport for other purposes. I notice an item in this Vote of £25,000 for awards for inventions. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that is to be allocated? There is also this point. A great many people engaged in the working of the squadrons think of small improvements which might be made and which would tend to increased efficiency. It is sometimes very difficult for such people to get their inventions or suggestions properly considered. I suppose they have to be put forward through the commanding officer. I would like to ask whether some means could not be devised by which such ideas could be forwarded direct to some independent person who could see whether there was anything in them, and send for the person concerned and cross-examine him. I believe that in great business houses that is actually done,
and I suggest that if a similar system were adopted in the Air Force much good might result. I do not know whether I would be in order in asking on Vote 4 whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us more about civil aviation, and particularly about accommodating stations on the aerial routes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend would be well advised in maintaining that officers employed in whole-time service should be paid monetary rewards for any little gadget or improvement they may invent in the course of their work.

Captain BENN: I did not ask for that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is much too much of that, and I do not think it should be encouraged. Anything of course in the nature of a great or novel invention must receive reward, and provision is made for that, but I very much discountenance the idea that an officer who is getting good pay from the State—and the rates of pay have been improved—should, whenever some new idea relating to the machine which he has to fly occurs to him, immediately apply for a reward. I think that was the tenour of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks.

Captain BENN: The right Ion. Gentleman is absolutely mistaken. I. am not suggesting any monetary reward. During the War it was my experience that many officers and men who thought of improvements which would make for the greater efficiency of the Service found that the cumbrous methods of submitting those ideas to the squadron or unit commander produced no result. I was not asking for any monetary reward, but that there should be some assurance that those intelligent and useful efforts on behalf of the efficiency of the Service of which they are proud should eventuate in the way they desire.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I know of no disposition to snub officers and men who put forward useful ideas, and I cannot think of any officers I know who would not be delighted to seize upon any 8.0 P.M. happy idea put before them. I will, however, give any assurance that is desired that we will do anything that is in our power to encourage such ingenuity. With regard to mechanical transport, of course there has been no part of the Air and Army establishments
which has been more stringently and drastically overhauled than that concerned with motor cars, and I. am satisfied that the reduction of motor cars now has gone down to the very minimum compatible with the ordinary carrying on of the duties. Some people have the idea that one of the great ways of achieving economy is to reduce motor cars and to walk instead, or go by train, and others think that if you can get the use of the telephone reduced or shorthand-writers retrenched you will in that way succeed in effecting great economies. If people who are dealing with matters of great consequence write their letters in their own hands instead of dictating them, walk to their business instead of riding, and send a message instead of speaking through the telephone, some people think economies will result, but, as a matter of fact, very few suggestions are less helpful than these.
So far as the mechanical transport of the Air Force is concerned, I have not yet finally reached a conclusion as to what extent we can pool with the Army. I am certain we can pool reserves with the Army; so far as the ordinary pool of cars is concerned we can pool reserves. Of course, the mechanical transport Repair Department at Shrewsbury, which is under the control of the Royal Air Force, we hope will be wound up and handed over to Slough, which, although it has been very frequently abused in this House and out of it by ignorant persons, is increasingly establishing itself as a paying asset in the State and is vindicating in a most conclusive mariner the wisdom and foresight of those concerned in its initiation. As far as civil aviation is concerned, I have the figures here. I said the total was £329,000. and these are the principal items: Meteorology, £25,000; pay (salaries), £39,000; air routes, Cairo to the Cape, £50,000; Karachi to Australia, £40,000; purchase of land, etc., £50,000; minor new works £25,000.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: Is there any provision for a route beyond Karachi? Is there any provision for acquiring land at either of the stations that would be required between there and Australia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes. This present flight to Australia has been done along a route which the Civil Aviation Department of the Air Ministry has been prospecting and developing. Of course,
it is far from perfect, and hon. Members can see what a perilous business it has been by the number of deaths that have occurred. Only one machine has so far got through, but the trail has been blazed, not only as far as Karachi, but right away through to Australia. Of course, I think the best part of the route will be the Cairo, Bagdad, Karachi route, and there anyhow you will have large air establishments for fighting or strategic purposes, and it ought to be possible on a first-class route, with aerodromes and so forth, for large commercial craft to make their way. The Cape to Cairo route, on which £50,000 has been spent, is now practically complete, and I could arrange for hon. Members who might be interested to see a roll or a chart as long as from here to the door, showing them all the stations throughout the whole of that route, where there are landing grounds, with dumps, etc. The present state of the scheme is this, that we want an incentive from South Africa as great as was offered by Australia to induce the civil aviation interests in this country to compete in the Cairo to the Cape flight, and I do think the great millionaires of the Rand might well make an offer of a prize equal to that which was given by the Government of Australia, and so offer an incentive to use this route. The route will be kept up by the different local Governments through which it passes. That is our policy, to negotiate with them to take over these landing grounds, keep them clear of the bush, and guard the stores of petrol and other commodities which are placed there, so that what has been done once will not fade away into the jungle altogether.

Sir N. MOORE: Where you pass over Dutch territory, for instance, have any arrangements been made with the Dutch Government? Hon. Members who read the particulars of Captain Ross Smith's flight will remember that the greatest difficulty was experienced in his getting away after he landed on Dutch territory, owing to the nature of the soil being such that it was almost impossible for him to get a start, and I should like to know whether any reciprocal arrangements are being entered into with the Dutch Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only say that it is for the Controller-General of Civil Aviation to do his best to smooth away the difficulties, and in pursuit of that we shall
use all the ordinary bargaining processes which remain at the disposal of the Government.
Question put, and agreed to.

WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,070,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £5,332,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £45,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

AIR MINISTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £116,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Air Ministry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £576,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £45,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

Captain W. BENN: In reference to some of the wages paid in the Air Ministry, I see that in the quasi-permanent staff, Vote 5, there are three ex-soldiers, Class B, who are being paid 31s. 6d. a week, and there are also fourteen assistant clerks in the Department of the Controller-General of Civil Aviation commencing at £1 a week. I would also like to ask what wages the messengers, porters, and cleaners are being paid. I do not know whether these people are being sufficiently paid or not. Certainly 31s. 6d. is not sufficient to pay a man, and I would like an assurance that there is nobody in the Department who is not being paid a wage commensurate with the enormously increased cost of living.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will make inquiries into that. I accept to the full all the implications of the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, and certainly a proper living wage must be secured to every person serving under the Air Ministry. With regard to the actual points of detail put by my hon. and gallant Friend, I could not possibly answer them on the spur of the moment, but perhaps he will embody them in a Parliamentary Question, when I can give him a definite answer. I gladly give him the general assurance he desires.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to raise three points of policy.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member was not here when we arranged to have the Debate on policy on the first Vote, namely, the Pay Vote, on the understanding that the other Votes were only dealt with as regards detail.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I did not mean that kind of policy at all. I am referring here to the distribution of certain wings on the White Paper issued under the direction of the Air Ministry. The distribution of the wings is, of course, policy, but I was not in any way questioning the higher administration of the Air Service.

The CHAIRMAN: Does he mean the distribution of the squadrons?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the very point we have been discussing most of the afternoon.
Question put, and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £34,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Miscellaneous Effective Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £169,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £45,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

Captain W. BENN: In regard to the Grant for the Meteorological Office, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the sum, of £25,000, but I see the Grant here is given as £12,000. Is the Meteorological Office completely under the Air Ministry, because it would seem to me very proper that it should be? Obviously the airmen must know more about the condition of the atmosphere than anybody else, and I myself think they should supply information about the atmosphere to the other branches of the Service, so far as they require it, either for gunnery or for navigation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The intention is that the meteorological staff and all investigations into that branch shall be brought, in practice, under the Air Ministry. It is said that the eye of the master
maketh the horse fat. No one has an interest in meteorology comparable to the Air Ministry. No other Department of State can compete with it for a moment in the vital consequence to its daily work of meteorology, and therefore it is following a perfectly logical and defensible principle to confide the charge of that matter entirely to us. I do not think there is any discrepancy between what I stated, namely, the £25,000 which has been spent generally on meteorology and the £12,000 which is required for the particular expenditure of the Meteorological Office.

Sir N. MOORE: Will any of the expenses in connection with the Pennant inquiry come out of this Vote for Miscellaneous Services?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The extra expenses of the Douglas-Pennant inquiry, which amount to something over £10,000, I think, is a law officers' charge and is expended by the Treasury. Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned it, I take this opportunity of thanking the House for having been guided by me at the beginning of the Session in regard to the institution of that inquiry. We had the most stormy Debate we have had on any Air Office Vote and one of the most stormy I ever remember to have spoken in on a Departmental matter, but the House accepted the advice which was tendered in all good faith by the responsible, Minister, and certainly has no reason to repent of it. If that example had been copied elsewhere in other and less responsible assemblies—

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Shall we be entitled to give our views on the case also?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not wishing to give any views, but merely expressing my sense of indebtedness to the House for having been guided by my advice on that matter, and my pleasure to be able to say that after these many months it has been found that that advice was not ill directed.

Lieut. - Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: Before leaving the Grant for the Meteorological Office, might I ask why the charge is always marked to civil aviation? I should have thought that that particular charge should be on the military side.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As a matter of fact, civil aviation this year has not been able to spend the modest sum allotted to it.
If there were a great shortage of money, and the expenditure was over the limit, I think it would be quite fair that it should be transferred to the military side proportionate to the amount of the service rendered to the military side.
Question put, and agreed to.

HALF-PAY, PENSIONS, AND OTHER NONEFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Resolved,
That, a sum, not, exceeding £43,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of _March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £214,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £45,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1910–20.

The CHAIRMAN: Before I put to the Committee any of the Votes in the Army Estimates, I think I ought to draw the attention of the Committee to the new form in which those Estimates are presented. I understand from the Treasury that the new form results from a recommendation said to have been made in the 7th Report of the National Expenditure Committee, 1918. I express no opinion, of course; on the advantages or disadvantages on the point of finance of the new form, but I have a little concern as to the question which am Chairman will have to put to the Committee. It does not much matter this year on these Votes, but I do suggest that before the Votes are brought before the Committee next year, perhaps the Public Accounts Committee, or some special Committee of the House, might consider this form from the point of view in which I am interested, namely, that of protecting the rights of every Member of the House of drawing attention to, and, it may be, moving a reduction of, any single item in the Votes. It seems to me that there is a possibility, if we are not careful, of putting the whole estimated sum in one item. only subdivided as it is under heads and not Votes, it may diminish the control of the Committee whose rights I am charged with the duty of protecting. I say this in order that it may be looked into before we reach next year's Votes.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure the Committee as a whole is much indebted to you for the remarks you have made on this matter. The importance of what you have said, I suggest with respect, cannot be over-estimated as, according to the tradition and usage of toe House, the real control of the House over the Executive depends very much on how the question is put from the Chair. That we all know from experience on the Government side and in Opposition. The form in which the Estimates appear are, I think, speaking generally, an improvement, so far as their mere presentation in the matter of figures is concerned, on the old form, and to some extent they follow the suggestion made in the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and, partial as the experiment is, I would not like anything I say to discourage His Majesty's Government from any effort, however feeble it may be, in the right direction for control over expenditure. The only comment I make about it is that on page 2 the right hon. Gentleman states that "The Army Estimates for 1919–20 have been prepared as far as practicable on the lines laid down in the Seventh Report of the National Expenditure Committee." I am sure the suggestion which you have made from the Chair that, in the future, if these Estimates are prepared in accordance with the suggestion of the National Expenditure Committee, the advice and assistance of the Public Accounts Committee—I go further than that; I am sure it is a duty, and that you particularly, and Mr. Speaker also gladly render any assistance—should be asked by the Government as to the preparation of the Accounts so that the questions put from the Chair should safeguard the rights and privileges of His Majesty's Commons in control of His Majesty's expenditure.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure there will be every disposition on the part of the two Departments for which I am responsible to agree to any arrangement on the Votes which will effectively safeguard the rights of the House of Commons in regard to Supply, and secure to Members the opportunity of challenging the expenditure of the year on every point, as they have been in the past. I will not attempt to go into details which are very technical when you come to discuss them. There are very few Members of the House like the right hon. Baronet the Member for the
City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite who are capable of pursuing the argument in its intricacies, but in principle there is absolutely no difference between us. Whatever may be found the best way of presenting the Estimates so as to safeguard the rights of the House of Commons will be adopted, and I will take great pains to see that the observations which have fallen from you, Mr. Whitley, are studied in the Finance Department both of the War Office and the Air Force, and I hope to be able to present the new Estimates in a manner which will give entire satisfaction.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: Cannot the Estimates be put from the Chair under each head?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid not; that is the trouble. Although I should certainly accept a Motion to reduce the total, in respect of Head 5 or Head 6, for instance, still I doubt whether that would give the Committee the same control as separate Votes. These Estimates have been so short a time before us that there has really not been time for us to consider them from that point of view, and that is the reason why I venture to suggest that before the next Estimates this side of the matter should be looked into. With regard to the Votes to-night, there are only two—one with regard to the Supplementary Vote of 100,000 men, and the other the Vote of £5,000,000—covering the balances on all the various Services. I suggest that we might take pro forma the 100,000 men, and then take such general discussion as is desired on the £5,000,000, covering any point in the Estimates as a whole.

ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 100,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920.

Mr. ADAMSON: Is this the proper place, Mr. Whitley, to draw attention to the Indian riots?

The CHAIRMAN: Not under this Vote. This does not deal with the Army in India.

Mr. ADAMSON: On a point of Order. I understood that this Vote dealt with the Army in India?

The CHAIRMAN: The Vote says "excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions," not including.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in respect of an estimated net total cost of £424,733,000, and of liabilities outstanding on the first day of the year.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have no intention of reviewing at length the Estimates for the year, but there are a number of points that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Before doing so, however, I want to point out that a year after the War has ended we are spending this huge sum. This is a great, disappointment to many Members, and I am certain will be a disappointment to many of the people of this country. We went to the War for the purpose, among other things, of ending military dominance in Europe. We have ended the War, but have, I fear, established a military autocracy in this country. It will be a very difficult matter indeed for this House to break down that autocracy, and of reducing the Army Estimates to a reasonable figure, unless we are prepared to take more drastic steps than have been taken up to the present. One could see more reason for a policy of this kind if the country had been in a financial condition to afford such an expenditure. Even then it would have been a very foolish policy to spend a sum of £405,000,000 on the Army.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have to bring our soldiers home.

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes, I grant that; but it will not cost us over £405,000,000 to bring them home. There are many items of expenditure, if one wanted to take up the time of the Committee, that could be very severely criticised. When one considers that we are on the verge of bankruptcy such a huge expenditure is criminal. The most important matter for the people of this country at the moment is to take the necessary steps to recover our national solvency. That very desirable object will be delayed, if not entirely defeated, so long as we have such Estimates presented to us for the Army and Navy. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one item of dis-
agreement. The Labour party has again and again called the attention of the House and the country to the foolishness of the policy of the Government in Russia. If that adventure, for which, I fear, the Secretary of State will have to bear a considerable portion of the blame, had not been embarked upon we would at least have been able to save £100,000.000. That is a very important consideration for us in view of our present financial position. Not only would we have been able to save that large sum of money, but, personally, I am inclined to think we should have been much nearer a general peace than we are now. We would have been on a more friendly footing with the people of Russia. The points I want to put are important. One is this: The men on demobilisation are transferred to Class Z Reserve. When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give them their complete discharge?

Mr. CHURCHILL: When the Compulsory Service Act ends, on 30th April next.

Mr. ADAMSON: In the interval—if it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that these men are to be discharged when the Compulsory Military Service Act lapses next April—can he tell us, in the event of any industrial trouble in the meantime in this country, that these men can be called upon?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Legally, un-doubtedly. While the Compulsory Military Service Act remains in force its power is operative. But I cannot conceive of any set of circumstances arising which would render such a step necessary. We have been through serious strikes, and the idea was never even entertained.

Mr. ADAMSON: The questions I am putting are important so far as the working class movement is concerned. I hope the Secretary of State will give them his most serious consideration, especially this one. I quite agree that legally, until the men are entirely discharged, they can be recalled. In such circumstances, however, as I am describing I think it would be a foolish policy and a highly dangerous one on the part of the Government. This matter is, I suggest, deserving of the very serious consideration of the Secretary for War.
My next point is the case of a considerable number of boys who have entered since the Armistice. These boys in many
cases have been enlisting at sixteen and seventeen years of age. Their parents either directly or through the medium of their Member of Parliament have been approaching the War Office with a view to getting them discharged from military service until they have reached the age provided for in the Military Service Act, namely, eighteen years of age. In almost every case the parents or a Member of Parliament have been met with the statement that on enlistment the lads have given their age as eighteen, and that accordingly they could not consider the question of their discharge. In numerous cases they have had the birth certificate of the lads sent on, but this has not had any effect, and these lads are being continued in military service notwithstanding that they enlisted under age. In quite a number of cases this is quite a great hardship.
I have here two cases of extreme hardship to the parents which I have explained to the War Office. The first is the case of a lad belonging to a family, the father having served during the War, afterwards being discharged from the Army on a 50 per cent. pension. Under these circumstances he is not able to earn as much money as he would have clone if he had been in normal health and strength. He has a number of young children still dependent upon him, and he looked to getting financial assistance from this lad. The second case is that of a lad belonging to a family where there are seven children younger than himself, none of whom are working, and naturally the parents expected that they would get some help from this boy who has enlisted. I have gone into both these cases, and I have not been able yet to get the boys discharged. I know my experience is typical of many hon. Members of this House, and I hope that it will be possible to have these cases considered.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We must have an Army of some sort. The compulsory Army is going to be succeeded by a voluntary Army.

Mr. ADAMSON: I think it is a great hardship to keep these young boys in the Army.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They have no business to give a wrong age. If they are well-grown young men, and it is afterwards found that they enlisted under age,
it is the practice of the Army to hold them. I am quite ready to look into the special cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. ADAMSON: I shall renew my applications to the War Office. The age under the Military Service Acts is eighteen, and if you have anyone under that age, and it can be proved that they enlisted under that age, then they should only remain with the consent of their parents. I think this question ought to have the serious consideration of the Secretary of State for War and the Government themselves. On a previous occasion I put before the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of having a general amnesty for prisoners belonging to the Army. I know that since we raised this question there has bean some relaxation so far as sentences are concerned, and possibly some of the men have been released from prison.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, an enormous number; more than three-quarters of the whole.

Mr. ADAMSON: I know many have been released, but we feel very strongly that there ought to be a general release of these prisoners, and the only ones who ought to be kept in any longer are those who have been guilty of very serious crimes indeed. I think one of the things the Secretary of state and his advisers ought to consider is that military discipline in the field is rigorous and severe, and the harshness of its penal code can only be justified by the grave necessities of active service, and even in the light or these necessities it does violence in many instances. On more than one occasion I have had to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to instances where it has done violence even to the necessities of the case. The Army for whom I am now pleading, that did such magnificent service during the course of that great struggle, was not one of the type that we have been accustomed to in this country. It- was largely a civilian Army. Its outlook was civilian and its conception of freedom and right was civilian. Consequently, ninny of the men who came up against Army orders and suffered imprisonment really had no knowledge of those orders. Under all the circumstances connected with the Army that fought for us so magnificently during the War, the time has really come when there ought to be a general amnesty for
these men and when only those men should be kept who have been guilty of most serious crime. I hope, notwithstanding the fact that his military advisers have been going into this matter in a sort of way, that they will go more closely into it and that we shall have a general amnesty for all these prisoners. I have already on a former Vote drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the story that we have had told in the newspapers regarding the shooting down of so many civilians in India during recent times. I can assure you, Sir, that I am not going to discuss it broadly and generally.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): That would give the right to another hon. Member to reply, and it is not in order.

Mr. ADAMSON: All that I wanted to say was that the evidence which has been given—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter that is before the Committee at all.

Mr. ADAMSON: —is of such a serious character—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to make the slightest reference to it without giving an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) to reply, and that would at once open up a discussion which would be out of order.

Mr. ADAMSON: I do not want a reply from the right hon. Gentleman. All that I want—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to observe my ruling. A ruling has been given, and the right hon. Gentleman must not attempt to go behind it.

Mr. ADAMSON.: Well, I must bow to your ruling, but I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman if we could have a statement before the House adjourns with a view of allaying the feeling that has been aroused.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must not really refer to it.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have put the point. I hope, in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that we may have a statement regarding these questions that I have raised. They are points of great import-
ance for a considerable section of our people, who would be pleased indeed for them to have the right hon. Gentleman's favourable consideration.

Lieut. - Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I wish it were possible for the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to make some general statement as to the policy of the War Office, but I recognise that at this moment it may not be possible, seeing that the matter is still to a great extent under consideration. I hope, however, that some mention may be made of the Territorial Force, in order to allay the natural anxiety of a large number of people all over the country who are most anxious that that Force should be re-established as soon as possible. I welcome the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made earlier in the evening with regard to the formation of an Imperial Joint General Staff for the three Services, and I look upon it as one of the most important reforms which possibly could be made in preparing for the defence of the country. It would be upon the recommendation of such a Committee that all Estimates in the future would be prepared. Such a body would be best able to give advice as to what was required for the defence of the country.
There are one or two criticisms which I would like to make with regard to these Estimates. I am rather surprised to see that there are only 31,000 people attending the Garrison and Detachment schools. We have heard a good deal about the improvement of education in the After-War Army, and I know that a very valuable scheme was prepared in order that men who join the Army should be given such education as will enable them to compete when they want to return to civilian life. I was rather struck with the small number of pupils at present attending these schools. I understand that a Paper has been prepared on this subject, and I feel sure that it would he interesting to Members if it could be circulated or laid upon the Table. I notice that some very large repayments occur in several of the Estimates. I presume that they are repayments from our Allies for services rendered to them by this country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would make some statement with regard to them. I want also to bring to his notice the very serious conditions of many of the barracks throughout the country owing to
dilapidations due to the impossibility, during the War, of getting labour to put the barracks in a proper state of repair. I notice that very few barracks are dealt with in these Estimates, and I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the necessity of making them fit and proper places for the young After-War Army which we hope to have. Your predecessor in the Chair called attention to the way in which some of these amounts are presented. I understand, if some latitude had not been allowed to-night, that it would have been difficult to call attention to any particular item in the Estimates. Looking through them this afternoon, I saw that there are four men—a custodian, a pensioner, and two other men—who are getting the large remuneration of £215 between them, including Health Insurance payments. The right hon. Gentleman said that he scrupulously observed proper wages conditions throughout the Army. Such a sum as that divided among four persons hardly provides a living wage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman when he replies may be able to give some indication in general terms, if it be not possible to do so in detail, as to the proposed reorganisation of the Army and Territorial Forces, for by so doing I am sure he will relieve the anxiety which is felt in many parts of the country.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. WIGNALL: I take part in the Debate to-night for the purpose of introducing a subject not hitherto referred to in this discussion, because, probably, it may not be considered of sufficient importance to occupy the time and attention of the majority of the members of the Committee. It is, nevertheless, a subject worthy of consideration. It is in regard to the position of the ranker-officer in the Army. What is that position to-day? What is his future to be to-morrow? What is the policy and attitude of the War Office regarding him? Ours is a democratic Army, or at least it ought to be. There should be a clear course for the young fellow joining as a private to reach, by virtue of his natural ability and fitness, the highest positions in the Service. I am informed that prior to 1914, or thereabouts, there was an Order issued or Instruction given that promotion from the ranks was to be encouraged. We have, I believe, on record more than one or two notable examples of promotion from the ranks, but certain barriers have
still to be removed and the road made easier for the man possessing skill and ability to attain the higher positions. We have had during the War period many notable examples of men who have been promoted to very exalted positions and have done justice to those positions. Some have become lieutenant-colonels and some commanders of battalions, and they have occupied these high posts with marked ability. Where are they now? Have they been reduced to 9.0 P.M. their former rank? Have they been put back, or have they left the Army, and if so, why? These are the questions that are disturbing the minds of some of us, and I, for one, feel that this is an opportune time for inquiry to be made into the matter. I should like to know if it be possible—and of course it is possible, although not perhaps exactly at the moment—I should like to know how many non-commissioned officers have been promoted to commissions since the 15th February, 1914, and have during the War held appointments as commanders of battalions or second in command or as lieutenant-colonels or colonels. What has become of them since the War? What are the prospects of these officers with reference to pay and promotion? Many of us have made inquiries into the position of the men to whom I am referring, and many of us too have had the privilege of reading that interesting and wonderful book published by Lord Haig and entitled, "Lord Haig's Final Dispatches." I was very much touched in perusing that volume by a paragraph on page 347 which, with permission, I will read to the Committee. for it contains some very striking and remarkable words. Speaking of the promotion of officers, Lord Haig writes:
Promotion has been entirely by merit and the highest appointments were open to the humblest, provided he had the necessary qualifications of character, skill and knowledge. Many instances can be quoted of men who rose from civil or comparatively humble occupations.
Lord Haig then gives us instances of schoolmasters, lawyers, taxicab drivers and ex-sergeant majors who have commanded brigades. One editor has commanded a division, another has successfully attained to senior staff officer of a Regular division. A young cook from Cambridge College, a clerk to the Metropolitan Water Board, an insurance clerk, an architect's assistant, a police inspector, all became efficient general staff officers.
A mess sergeant, a railway signalman, a coalminer, market gardeners, an assistant secretary to the Haberdashers' Company, a quartermaster-sergeant, and a private have risen to command a battalion. Clerks have commanded batteries. Schoolmasters, colliers, the son of a blacksmith, an iron moulder, an instructor in tailoring, an assistant gas engineer, a grocer's assistant, as well as policemen, clerks and privates have commanded companies or acted as adjutant, and that is a record we all have a right to be proud about. It is a record the whole Service can appreciate. Why do I refer to it? Because I am informed that there is a desire on the part of the War Office to go back to the bad old practice of making it possible for only the sons of rich men to qualify for and occupy these high positions in the Army. If a collier or a miner or a blacksmith is good enough to hold a high command in time of war, he is good enough to have the opportunity of reaching it in time of peace. If he was good enough in the stress of war and in the bloodshed -and carnage that was going on around him to be marked by his conspicuous gallantry and by his knowledge, skill and ability to hold a high position, he is worthy of holding the same position in time of peace. I am informed that these ranker officers are not given the same opportunity. Although at the close of the War a man was a lieut.-colonel, and he is no longer required in that position, he reverts to his former rank and becomes either a captain or something slightly lower, he loses his position and his pay and, when he retires, he does so on a lower pension. That is not good enough; that is not fair play and that is not giving a reward for the glorious -achievements performed.
The War Office ought to encourage the ranker and to encourage the private to attain the goal of his ambition, if he can reach it. It should be made easy for him to reach it, and there should be every inducement and encouragement offered to him to get there. All the wisdom, knowledge and brains have not been given to the sons of the rich more than to the sons of the poor, but the sons of the rich have better chances of developing them than the children of the poor. It is the duty of those who are in charge to give a chance to those to reach distinction who cannot afford it otherwise. The War Office ought to set aside at least 25 per cent. of the positions that become vacant for the rankers, and when they have reached those
positions they should be allowed to retain them, so that when they retire it should be on the full pay they are receiving at the moment. I bring this matter to the notice of the Committee, because I feel it is most important and one worthy of consideration and attention. Efficiency, ability, and skill should be the keynotes to success, and to accomplish that the old barriers of wealth should be removed. We know that many obstacles are being placed in the way of the ranker. We know the many ways in which he has been crushed out of his position. There are thousands of officers to-day more than are required. Who is the one that will be thrust into the background? I think I am right in saying it will be the ranker officer who will have to go. We have seen that in evidence and in statistics. That is not right or fair. We should assist those who have attained positions by their bravery and gallantry and not hinder them in receiving the full reward for their success.

Brigadier-General WIGAN: I should like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to a Vote for £250,000 appearing on page 13 of the Estimates, which is to provide for some 700 gentlemen cadets at Sandhurst and 240 at Woolwich. On 27th October last the right lion. Gentleman informed me that there were 4,500 surplus Regular officers now in the Army, and that, in addition, there were 3,000 temporary officers who had been recommended and were asking for commissions. I would, therefore, like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, with 7,500 officers trained in war, who have fought for their country, we should have the expense of maintaining two establishments for training young officers without any experience whatever? As to the question raised by the last speaker, that of commissions from the ranks, prior to the War in the Regular Army there were very few commissions granted from the ranks. In the twelve years during which I served in the Regular Army, in the regiment I was in there was no one single officer who had gained his commission from the ranks. The Army was officered—very well officered—by those who could afford to pay for an education which allowed them to compete for Sandhurst and Woolwich and which allowed them to maintain themselves while they were there. Even those officers who before the War were granted commissions from the ranks were granted them on very dis-
advantageous terms. First, no provision was made for their higher military training, so that the officer from the ranks found himself at a very great disadvantage compared with the boy who had been through Sandhurst or Woolwich; and, secondly, he found himself junior in rank to officers many years younger than himself. When the War came it was necessary to give commissions on a very large scale from the ranks. I believe that in the Regular Army alone some 6,700 commissions were granted to non-commissioned officers and men. As the commanding officer of a unit in the fighting line, I can testify personally to the magnificent work these men commissioned from the ranks did. In these Estimates we see that provision is made for some 940 young gentlemen to be trained at Sandhurst or Woolwich, but I can see no provision whatever made for cadet schools for non-commissioned officers and men recommended for commissions. If it was fair and right to give commissions in time of war, it must be right and only common fairness that commissions should be granted equally to non-commissioned officers and men in time of peace. Therefore I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that this matter will receive his favourable consideration.

Mr. LAWSON: I want to use this, the first opportunity I have to addressing the House, to make a plea for the men who are in prison as the result of offences during the War. They were in the main before the War civilians and men of the characteristic independent outlook and spirit of the Briton, and it was no easy matter when they went into the Army to accommodate themselves to military conditions. I speak with conviction on that question, because I myself am an ex-soldier from the ranks, and I know how very difficult indeed it was, with the best will and the best intentions, to fit oneself into the organisation and to move in the mass after one had been used to moving and thinking for oneself. The man of the finest spirit and often of the greatest intelligence was the man who was more likely to be upset and sometimes to violate Army Regulations. I have sometimes thought that amongst these men who are now undergoing imprisonment it is just possible that you have some of the best citizens that there are in this country to-day. When it comes to offences in the field it
is a well known fact, attested by those who have received the highest honours in the field, that there are moments when the nerves fail a man and he is likely, for a temporary period, to play what we call the coward. All the bravest men agree that there have been times when they have felt even like that themselves. I think this question ought to receive more serious attention than it has received up to the present by the Government. All the ex-soldiers' organisations in the country have emphatically passed resolutions and made attempts to get a serious consideration of this question. It is said that the men who have been guilty of minor offences have been released, and it is the men who have been guilty of serious offences who are now retained. But we would ask what is a serious offence, and what is the standard for a serious offence. I know a case of a man who served four years, and was then sent to Russia against his will, a man who was said to be guilty of insubordination in the face of the enemy. He was a sergeant, but was stripped, and is now in prison and will be dismissed from the Army. I know from his letters that the shame of the thing to one of the best of citizens is eating as a canker into his soul, and it seems to me that the least that can be doue is to give a general amnesty to make an end of this question and to show that we are as generous as some of those countries which have already taken that stop.
We do not grumble for a moment on these benches against Army expenditure when it goes to increase the pay of soldiers. Those who have served for the usual bob a day can appreciate the position of men who have received increased pay, and men who are denied the benefit of ordinary life ought to have some recompense in another form. What we complain of is the £100,000,000 spent in the Russian adventure I have come through a by-election recently, and one of the outstanding points that we made in that election was the position of the Government in relation to Russian affairs, and I know even my opponent, a Coalition candidate, could not for a moment think of defending the Russian intervention, so strong was public feeling. So, on that ground alone of the financial needs of this country—we were told only quite recently that the Report of the Royal Commission on old age pensions could not be carried out because there was not sufficient
money—the money that has been spent on that adventure was criminal extravagance. It is being ended, but we sometimes see things going on which make us think that when we are receiving a "yes" from the Government Bench it really means "no." So we think money spent in that way is sheer waste, and is against the best wishes and aspirations of the people of this country and the use of men and money for it are alien to the best interests and desires of the people of this country.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the Committee has listened with great interest to the very weighty speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson), and we shall look forward to his intervention in our debates in the future. I hesitate to speak on details of Army administration, belonging to the opposite Service, but I should like to acknowledge the very great help which doubtless other hon. Members besides myself have received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Waring) in all details concerning our constituents who have grievances in connection with the Army. I am sure I am not alone in having experienced the promptitude of the replies and the great help we have had in all hard cases and the sympathetic consideration those cases have had. I have raised the question of the policy in regard to the Army in Mesopotamia by way of question, and also the last time we had a Report stage on Supplementary Estimates for the Army. The Secretary of State for War was not present on that occasion and an answer was given, which did not really disclose the policy—for a very good reason—by the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office. I hope my efforts will be more successful on this occasion, and that we can have some satisfaction with regard to these men in Mesopotamia. There are in Mesopotamia to-day, or were quite recently, some 21,000 white soldiers. Of these only 500 are volunteers for the post-war Army. That means that 20,500 are being kept out of conscript. The Armistice is fourteen months old. Many of these men have been out there for two or three hot seasons, and I have reason to know that they have suffered severely from the climate. I am sure the Committee sympathises with these very gallant soldiers in that extremely unpleasant spot. I understand that reliefs are being sent and that these men will come home in the spring. Might we have
some further details about the actual rate of demobilisation of these men. It is a serious question in the country and hon. Members representing constituencies from which come the units now in Mesopotamia will bear me out that there are many bitter complaints from these men and their relatives. Will these men be able to come home not in trickles, but in whole battalions? There are also 79,000 Indian troops there. The cost of this Army of Occupation according to the Estimate is £32,000,000, a tremendous sum even considering the present values of money, approaching the whole pre-war Army Estimates.
We have had a statement from the Secretary for War that he hopes to reduce the numbers in the Mesopotamia Army by the greater use of aeroplanes, armoured cars, and tanks. If that is so, the whole policy in regard to the Mesopotamia Army of occupation is simply deplorable. It will mean that we may save in men, but we shall not save in money. But there is more than money in this. Does the Secretary of State for War on the advice that he has from the men on the spot there see any hope of raising native levies from the natives in Mesopotamia? With a sprinkling of white officers they could be drilled into armies to defend their home frontiers and preserve order in their own country, as we have done with such success in our West African Colonies, and particularly our East African Colonies. It is hard to believe that that would be impossible, because the Arab in the past when he has been well led has been a good fighting man. If our rule there is beneficent and sympathetic there is no reason why we could not get a trustworthy native Army. If that is possible, is it being inquired into? Are we trying to do this, or are we hoping to be able to hold Mesopotamia simply by our own white troops and the Indians? If so, it will mean an enormous expense. The country is a great distance away from transport, the climate is appalling and no man will go there willingly to face the desolation and the heat. This touches on the question of the future of Mesopotamia, and our Army Estimates are prepared on the policy that we are going to pursue. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must know what he is aiming at in this matter. I dare say the actual boundaries of Mesopotamia are not yet settled, but so far as anyone can make
out that country is going to be placed under a British mandate. It is, therefore, a question of the military occupation coming from us, and we have to find the money and the men. It is time that we were given some idea what our policy is to be in Mesopotamia, over and above holding it by a large Army of Occupation.
I should also like to inquire about our Army in Italy which is costing £2,000,000. Why is it there now? There are l0,000 men and some hundreds of officers. Is it there for salvage purposes? If so, in view of the great distance and the expense and difficulty of transport, would it not be better to sell the stuff which still remains in Italy, as the Americans did with some of their salvage and derelict stores in France? Why is this Army in Italy? Austria collapsed before Germany, and we are entitled to know for what purpose our Army is being kept there, and how the expense of keeping it there is justified. The same thing applies to the Army of the Rhine. We understand that the Army of Occupation on the Rhine is being reduced to something like three divisions. An Army of three divisions, or even of five divisions on the Rhine may; be a symbol of our great victory in the War, but in the case of any very serious trouble I do not see how a small force like that is going to affect the military situation at all. Either keep a large Army there or else clear your troops out altogether. I do not know what the questions of policy are; we are not told. We only have to find the money and look as pleasant as possible. The Secretary for War has stated that the cost of this Army of Occupation shall be a first charge on the German Exchequer. If this Army of Occupation is removed then it will go as a first charge and the money that we should get could be devoted to some better use than that of keeping this force very insignificant in comparison with the Continental armies, on the Rhine, where, I think, it is in very great danger.
So far I have been referring to the necessity of reducing our Forces largely on the ground of economy, but there is another matter which requires attention. It seems to me that we are not keeping a sufficient force in a very important strategical part of the Empire, and that even if we have to spend more money it would be well worthy of our consideration. I refer to the Straits Settlements. The Estimates state that in the Straits Settlements
there will be one brigadier-general, one aide-de-camp, one general staff officer, second grade and one general staff officer, third grade I would like to know what the garrison is to be in future, because that staff indicates a remarkably small garrison. It means that in Singapore and the neighbourhood we are going to keep a very small force. We are not going to fight Germany in the future, because Germany has not the money, the equipment or the spirit to fight. The Secretary for War has already stated that no army for offensive purposes is being raised in Germany. But we are paying an insurance in case of war, or we would not be asked to find this amount of money. If we must accept the possibility of war, then we must recognise that the dangerous part of the world is from the East, and if from the East danger comes the district round the Straits of Malacca is strategically the most important in the British Empire as things are at present. It is right in the centre of the great lines of communication from the East to India and to Australia, and it is most important to us to maintain Singapore as a great place d'armes for our forces in any war coming from the East. This is dealing with Army affairs, and the problem is more purely naval, but the fleet itself would be much hampered unless Singapore and the adjacent places are strongly garrisoned. There should be a really efficient force there, and the district should be well fortified and capable of holding out for a certain time until reinforcements can be sent; otherwise, as a naval centre for which it is all-important it would be of very much less value to the Fleet. The right hon. Gentleman must know the policy which exists at present, and if he would refer to this question he would perhaps raise a weight from the minds of many of us as to the neglect of Eastern affairs in favour of the land problems of the West which our rulers and governors do not yet seem to be able to get away from.

Mr. HOPKINS: I would like to voice a grievance against the War Office which I think is shared by a great many other hon. Members. That is the great delay which takes place in getting a settlement of hard cases which we bring to the notice of the House. One of the functions and privileges of a Member of Parliament is to try to put these hard cases when they occur in his constituency, and to allay the
dissatisfaction which results from them, and if we find it is impossible to get either satisfaction or understandable answers from the War Office we can see how difficult it must be for the unfortunate men themselves to try to get their grievances set right. The trouble which the War Office is laying up for itself through its inattention to these matters is very considerable. In every village in the country and in every parish, almost in every street, in our town there is some man or other who has served in our Army and thinks he has got some grievance which has not been settled, or some question to which he has not been able to get an answer. Each of those men is a centre of dissatisfaction. He complains to his neighbours that he has not been well treated, and in many cases it merely means a simple explanation to settle the case and make the man contented. In many of those cases where I have applied and have got an answer, even when the man did not get what he asked for he was satisfied that his claim had been considered and that he had got an answer. It is dangerous to leave those centres of discontent, those smouldering fires. Individually they are not important, but they might be of very great importance if some wind of unrest blows across the country, and they would provide a very fertile ground for those who wish to agitate the workers. I have talked to men in my Constituency, who have said, "Look how the War Office have treated so-and-so. He went in 1915, he cannot even get what is owing to him."I want when I ask questions as to these men to be able to state the facts, and I find it very difficult to get a reply.
I may give one concrete instance of the delay which takes place. Early in July a man told me that he had a claim against the War Office. He had been prosecuting it for some months, but had been unable to get a reply. I looked at his papers. I am not an expert, but, to the best of my judgment, he had a good case. I took it to the hon. Member who used with great kindness and courtesy to attend to our hard cases in the room of the right hon. Gentleman, and he told me it was not a case for him, that it was entirely for the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I wrote to that right hon. Gentleman on the 14th July with full details. Almost by return of post I got a reply thanking me for my letter, and saying that the matter would receive prompt attention. I waited a month or six weeks and wrote again,
and got a further communication thanking me for my letter, and saying that it would receive prompt attention. I waited another month or two and wrote again with exactly the same result. The man himself had been trying also to get some satisfaction. He has failed. I failed, also. I spoke personally to the right hon. Gentleman who, to the regret of us all, has gone to another place, about this case. He promised me also that the matter would receive attention, and regretted that some mistakes had been made in the case. Now I suppose that I shall have to begin all over again with his successor unless the Government will kindly take note of the case and, perhaps, enable me to get down to the gentleman who is holding up this matter, because he is the person whom I want to talk to. The result is that this unfortunate man, who joined up when the War started and served right through the War, is broken in health and spirit, and is discontented and miserable. He thinks he has got a claim, and I think he has, against the Government, and he has been for nine months or six months, with the aid of a Member of Parliament, trying to press it, and he has got no satisfaction whatever. I am not a person who grumbles much, but I do think that this is a legitimate grumble, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will attend to it.

Mr. WATERSON: There are one or two matters to which I wish to draw the attention of the War Office, and I think when I have stated them I will have gained the sympathy of the House in bringing them forward. Many of us were exceedingly pleased when the War Office decided some time ago to relax the rules in connection with compassionate cases. Pleas were made from these benches for the release of the only sons of widowed mothers. The War Office eventually acceded to that request. I want to take this opportunity of asking the War Office to review the whole situation afresh with the object of relaxing the rules as they exist to-day. I will give a particular case which I have in mind. It is that of a man nearly seventy years of age who has been blind many years. He had two sons. His wife is in delicate health and bedridden. He has a little business. If that business is neglected for many weeks his whole future is jeopardised. One of his sons has returned from the War, incapacitated for work. The other son, barely twenty years of age, is in the Army. I
submit that it is a case for compassion, and that the younger son should be released in order to give necessary support to his father and to his mother. Under the existing rules parents must be totally dependent upon the son. In this case they are not totally dependent, but they are certainly next door to it. As the situation in Europe is vastly different from what it was comparatively recently, I submit that the compassionate Clauses could be relaxed somewhat to meet such a case as I have outlined.
Another matter to which I would call attention refers to wives whose soldier husbands, through shell-shock or other war effects, are now in mental hospitals with no probability of a return to normal conditions, their mental faculties having gone. Strange to say, these wives, who have only a bare subsistence, if they are anxious to see their husbands, once a month or once in six weeks, have to pay their own train fares to the institution where their husbands are being treated. I plead with the Secretary of State for War to give some consideration to the case of these women, and to assist them with travelling expenses. It would not be a great expense, especially if we compare the sum involved with the brightness that would come to the heart and home of the wives.
We have heard many complaints in this House relative to the question of transport. We are told that there is congestion here, there, and everywhere. Many statements are made as to how it may be relieved. I want to ask the Secretary for War to take into consideration the fact that many rail-waymen nobly volunteered to fight in the early days of the War, but for three years, though they continually went to recruiting centres, they were told that they must return to their work, which was of national importance and contributing to the success of the War. In the last twelve months of the War men went in large numbers into the Army from the railway shops and from the railway docks, and from every railway centre. These were men to whom the War Office had refused enlistment in the first instance yet they are in the Army to-day, being penalised through no fault of their own, and some of the cream of the railwaymen are being so detained. I would ask the Secretary for War to consider the advisability of accelerating their release. It would tend to relieve the congestion of railway traffic about which so many complaints are heard.
Another point I want to raise is in reference to our troops in Egypt. Many of them have been there three and a half years without leave. Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely what arrangements have been made for sending these troops home? Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way clear to accelerate their release and give these war-worn heroes the opportunity of a speedy return to civil life? I notice on page 22 of the Estimates, under the sub-head "Working Expenses of -Hospitals," a sum of £9,879,000. I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember that a fortnight ago the House was counted out on this matter. I want to let the public know of a private and secret Circular which was issued to those in charge of the hospitals. There is no one in this House who would challenge the patriotism of the medical profession. We know that in the middle of the War these excellent men proved worthy. They went into the hospitals without the slightest idea of receiving any remuneration for their services. Let it be said to the credit of many of them that they allowed their own businesses to be neglected, and as a result sometimes found themselves in financial difficulties. The private Circular to which I refer was issued on 16th June, 1916. After some months of effort to secure a copy of this confidential Circular, I have been successful. After twelve months had passed by there was a difficulty in getting the necessary men, owing to many of them having been drafted to France and Belgium and the other theatres of war. An offer was then made that those who took up the task of being in charge of Voluntary Aid Detachment headquarters should be paid so much per day per patient. I have to protest most emphatically against the latter portion of the Circular, which said:
I am to say that the above authority is to be treated as a confidential communication and not published for general information. It is not intended that payment should be made unless it is asked for, and hospitals should not be informed of this authority.
That was a nice Circular for the War Office to issue. They thought it right and honourable that these men should be paid, but the men concerned must not be acquainted with that fact, as the Circular was to be treated as confidential. When the matter leaked out a litle, some of the men concerned wrote to those in charge of Headquarters and got various replies. One reply ran that the question of justice and equity did not enter into these matters, and that the whole question of the pay-
ment of medical officers had always been sent to them as confidential, and that no one had been paid only from the date of application, but, the writer added, when he saw the applicant he would talk the matter over with him. May I ask, how could people apply if they did not know of the Circular. In some cases men have lost a very great deal and made application under this Circular without effect. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to honour such applications now? I am in a position to state that some applications have been honoured, and in a certain area more than £1,000 has been distributed amongst the medical profession. Other districts have been ignored; and why is this preferential treatment? I do protest against a secret Circular of this kind being issued. The evil at the root of the matter is that payment cannot be made unless asked for, while those concerned must not be informed. Is there any precedent for a Circular of that type from the War Office or any other Government Department? If it was not necessary to make payment, why issue the Circular, and if it was why not honour the obligation in an honourable fashion. Since I endeavoured to raise the question a fortnight ago, the matter has been referred to in the Medical Journals and I have received many letters from the medical profession. I do not think it can be said that the Labour Members always have sympathy from the medical profession, so that in fighting this case we have no axe to grind, but we are simply doing it on the grounds of equity and justice. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet this case and thereby remove a great grievance which to-day exists amongst the members of the medical profession.

10.0 P.M

Sir D. MACLEAN: I trust that the case that the hon. Gentleman has just put forward is not typical of what is being done in respect of the medical profession, 10.0 P. M and I am sure the appeal which the hon. Member has made will receive sympathetic consideration from the right hon. Gentleman. I am certain that he agrees that no body of men who have rendered service to the country throughout the War deserve better of their country than medical men. To bring the Committee back to some general propositions, I would refer particularly to the speech on the 29th October, and the total which the right hon. Gentleman then estimated would be in the Army on the 15th November, was about 500,000
men, including 45,000 in hospital, and that by Christmas he hoped that total would have fallen to 330,000 men. It is not now far removed from the Christmas festival, and it would be interesting if he could tell us what is the total at the present date, and how many of those who remain in the Army are volunteers and how many of them approximately, at any rate, came under the Military Service Act. Could he tell us also how many of the discharged men received complete discharge, and how many were demobilised in Class Z. Turning to the Estimates, and on page 8, giving the total of the Armies of Occupation, I would repeat some of the questions put when the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House but was, I expect, getting very much-needed refreshment after a very strenuous day. Are there any troops in Italy, and, if so, how many, and how many are there in Bulgaria and Turkey and the Caucasus. Can he give us any information as to the military establishments at present in Egypt and in Palestine, and there was also a question asked with regard to Mesopotamia. May I also ask what is the position with regard to the brigade which was stationed at Batoum? Has it been withdrawn, and, if so, is it disbanded for the purposes of demobilisation or is it to be sent to any part of Russia or Asia? In regard to the Black Sea Army, will he kindly tell us what that term includes, and in the general disposition of His Majestys Forces can he tell us to-night—it may be useful in the Debates which are bound to take place before the House rises—what is the total of His Majesty's Forces at present engaged in Ireland? The only other points I wish to deal with are in regard to the general expenditure. The Estimates which were given by my right hon. Friend in the early part of the year were sufficiently staggering, but since then they have gone up by, I believe, some tens of millions. At any rate, now they total, after allowing for all the appropriations, £400,000,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But we did not get the appropriations. We got £65,000,000.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Well, £350,000,000, allowing for pretty well everything. Of course, that is a sum which no one can grasp the magnitude of. It is impossible to know what £350,000,000 means in hard cash or in credit, but it will have to be found by the nation somehow. I only
hope that the result of the Cabinet conferences and of the decisions which I presume they have come to will be to disclose that the Estimates for the coming year will approximate at any rate to the normal year, a fancy term which I am afraid is very far from realisation in this country, so far as finance is concerned, but as far as the expenditure on the Army is concerned, I am quite certain that the country will demand that there shall be the most drastic reductions consistent with a reasonable margin of safety. In looking through these Estimates which are now before the Committee, by way of inquiry on one or two points, I would ask my right hon. Friend if he would look at page 49, which deals with the War Office, staff of commands, etc. It is sufficiently alarming to find that the net expenditure for the War Office for the coming year is £2,906,250, but the staff of the general officer commanding home forces runs up to £96,000, and staff of commands at home and Colonial garrisons—the Colonial garrisons do not amount comparatively to a very large figure—amount to no less than £1,495,500. Overleaf, under the heading of "War Office," such a department as that of the adjutant-general costs £635,482, and further down on the same page, under the heading of "staff of commands at home," I see that the Eastern Command is put down at £158,185. Looking at page 98, which gives some particulars of that, I find that there are no less than five generals commanding of first class and two of the second class, a total of seven generals of the first and second class in the home commands, costing the country no less a sum than £24,000 in round figures this year. Of course, like great battleships, these great general officers necessarily have all their attendant light cruisers and small craft of every description. You cannot have a general without having all that a general means in the way of subsidiary commands of every kind.
What I want to press upon my right hon. Friend is the example. I have taken these quite haphazard, while I have been sitting here, because most unfortunately I cannot find time otherwise. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what possible justification can there be for a maintenance of seven generals in the first and second class at a cost of£24,000 a year to the country in the home commands? I only suggest that on the face of it there are far too many, and that is the kind of
thing which anybody who takes up these Estimates finds all over them, and we really do want some sort of justification for it. I know my right hon. Friend when he speaks can produce a most effective curtain, with the whole of the serried ranks behind him cheering, but, after all, these are figures which require real sober explanation, and not peroration, to carry off. I do not compete with my right hon. Friend in that, but I would invite him to answer these two or three practical points which I have put before him. Here we have been talking on all these Estimates that have come up from time to time, and the one thing which is so obvious that the most uncompromising supporter of the Government cannot possibly get away from is this, that throughout this year, ever since Parliament started, there has been on the part of the Government a lack of grip and control over the great spending Departments, and it was only when the country got finally to grasp it that they began to tackle their job. Any step they may take—
While the lamp holds out to burn, The vilest sinner may return.
I am only putting it in a general way, as anyone knows, but any signs of reform by way of direction and the grip of the actual situation and of economy will be backed up in no carping spirit, but with the wholehearted zeal and enthusiasm of all those who sit on this side of the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, added a number of questions to those which have already been asked in considerable abundance by Members in other parts of the House. My right hon. Friend spoke as if the desire for economy and the care of finance were sentiments the consideration of which only existed on the bench Which he adorns, but, as a matter of fact, I think I have not made any speech on the Estimates—and we have had a great many Debates on Army and Air Estimates—in which I have not tried to deal with the financial aspect. I have repeatedly returned to it, and only this afternoon, in the course of the Debate, which ranged over the most distant prospects of future technical and administrative developments, it was left for me, the Minister supposed to be the spendthrift, to refer specifically to the financial facts and figures contained in the Estimates, and the Leader of the Opposition and his able sup-
porters and assistants never, apparently, detected the great error which the newspapers had made in assuming that an economy of £12,500,000 had been made in the Air Estimates, whereas, as a matter of fact, the main part of it was a transference from the Air to the Ministry of Munitions Vote

Mr. HOGGE: There was nothing in it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There was a great deal in it. There was nothing in it because the hon. Member did not detect it. If he had detected it, he would have. hastened to proclaim it at the top of his voice, and at great length, with wearisome reiteration, in season and out of season, in order and out of order; he would have dwelt on the shameful fraud of the Air Ministry in attempting to make out that they had effected a great economy of £12,000,000, whereas, as a matter of fact, they had only shovelled £11,250,000 on to the Ministry of Munitions.

Mr. HOGGE: There is nothing in it; that is why I did not make it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The power of continued, obstinate assertion in the face of the light of reason has played its part, and I do not doubt will continue to play its part in the Parliamentary government of the land. I say that only by way of exordium to my task of replying to the numerous questions that have been asked. My right hon. Friend asks me to give him, offhand, details describing the strength of the British Army in all the different theatres of the late War and parts of the world where they are at the present time. My memory is pretty good, and I have a fairly clear idea of where those forces are, and what their numbers are; but I really think I would sooner make a return, if a question is put down, as to the number of troops in Ireland, on the Black Sea, in Mesopotamia, Germany, England, and so forth; also as to the number of conscripts and the numbers that are newly-enlisted volunteers.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman similar to that which I made to the First Lord of the Admiralty the other night as to the means of keeping the House and the country informed of the rates of reduction in the strength and cost of His Majesty's Forces? Could there be each month issued to the House of Commons a statement showing the reduction in the number
of men, at any rate, because, after all, that is the great index. The First Lord promised to give the matter very careful consideration, and I have no doubt something will be done. Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend on the first of the mouth, as a regular thing, to let the House know what is the reduction of the preceding month in the strength of the Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I do not think there will be any difficulty in that. It might be elicited by a question on the first of every month. I am quite ready to give it. As a matter of fact, broadly speaking, the reduction in the demobilisation of the Army has been much as the forecast I made when I last addressed the House. There has been a slight lag, but it is not a serious one. It does not affect the basis of the forecast which I then uttered as to the diminution. I shall be very glad to give the actual figures before the House rises, for Members may as well know to what extent demobilisation, dispersal, the melting down, and dispersion of our erstwhile gigantic military forces has, under the influences of the work of this Session and the administrative measures taken by the Government been effected. I hope we will not be forced to raise the numbers again by any unsuspected turn of events in any part of the world.
My right hon. Friend talked about the approximate Estimates for next year. He said they were enormous. I am not going to talk about the Estimates for next year till we get them. The Estimates for this year are £405,000,000. The Estimates for next year, at any rate, will not be £400,000,000. There will be three factors operating on the Army Estimates for next year. I have directed the preparation of a statement for the purpose of showing in three separate columns particulars as to what one might call the normal post-war army; secondly, the aftermath expenditure due to the War to which we are already committed, and for which the Bill has not yet come in—the settling up of the accounts for medals, grants, arrears of gratuities, looking after the men who are wounded and who are not yet well, and so on. This has nothing to do with the normal expenditure. Under the third heading is the extraordinary expenditure of a quasi-war character connected with the state of continued disturbance and un-
certainty over the whole of the Eastern world, and what it costs to maintain, the extra military establishment and the plebiscitary division which has to be maintained in Germany pending the decision of these various peoples as to what country they will belong to.
On these three heads we will present a statement and it will be very easy for the right hon. Gentleman and others to see exactly what is the permanently normal cost as distinguished from any adventitious or additional elements which may be added to it. With regard to the number of generals, I observe that a statement which I made some time ago, in which I said there was a large number of surplus lieutenant-generals and surplus major-generals, has been the cause of much outpouring of ignorant comment in some of the great organs of public opinion. It is quite true that there are over forty lieut.-generals and over eighty major-generals who are unemployed. Many of these officers are distinguished men who served in the War and now they find their careers at an end. They are no burden except that you have to pay them what is-legally their due, and even economy cannot take that away from them. They have their rights under the Royal Warrant, but so far as any employment is concerned there is none for them. What would be said if you had two-thirds of the lawyers of the country unemployed and someone told them they could never practice their profession again and that their career was at an end, and someone said that, "Here we have all these extra redundant lawyers eating their heads off at our expense?

Sir D. MACLEAN: "They would wish to, be on half-pay.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am well acquainted with the amenities and the emoluments of various professions, and I have not the slightest doubt in regard to a comparison of the legal profession with the military profession, because there is no comparison between the two, and at every stage, in opportunities, range and scope and immunity from any serious risk, the legal profession easily holds its own. I think it is rather ungenerous to refer to the position of these generals in this manner. To me it is a most painful thing to see a number of men, who have played such an important part in this great War, whose careers are entirely ended and who know there is nothing that can be given to them.
for the next few years. At any rate, the Treasury have agreed that general officers who like to take their pensions now and go, seeing that there is no chance of employment, can get their full pension even though they may be a year or two short of the actual time they have to serve under the Royal Warrant. By that process I hope a very large number of these officers will think it worth while to take their retired pay at the present time, and thus clear the major-generals' and lieutenant-generals' list so that the new post-war Army which is coming into existence will not have a large number of these officers waiting and blocking the way to promotion. I want to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Water-son) who made a long speech about the woes of the medical profession. I would suggest that he should allow me to put him into contact with the responsible officials dealing with this matter and then let me have a report as to what are the outstanding points of difference.

Mr. WATERSON: I will again give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentlemen will allow me to confront him with competent officials who will deal with the subject in equal detail and equal length that he has done to-night, I am sure that we can at any rate arrive at an approximation of agreement. I can assure him that it is not my wish to keep any medical officer a single day longer than is necessary. It is only consideration for the health of the troops that has made us use compulsion with regard to medical officers at a time when we have practically abandoned it with regard to every other class.

Mr. WATERSON: May I—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it would be really more useful if we left it in that way. It can be raised later on the Adjournment if any further question arises. I have been asked by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) about the promotion of officers from the ranks. I think that I may claim to have always been a supporter of that principle. At the Admiralty I was responsible for devising a system, or for having a system devised, which enables special mates to be promoted from the lower deck to commission ranks, and which furnishes them with a swift
and easy ladder for rising to commission ranks. I have exactly the same views about the Army and the Air Force. There are two ways in which non-commissioned officers and warrant officers are promoted to commission ranks. One is that when, after many years' service, they rise to an honoured position they are given a sort of honorary commission in the Navy and in the Army. That is all very well, and it satisfies a certain proportion of those who enter the different Services, but it is by no means satisfactory and sufficient, because, if you are to have genuine promotion from the ranks, you want to make sure that a penniless boy who enlists in the Army, Navy, or Air Force can rise quickly, if he has character and ability, to commission ranks, with all the possibility of advancing from those ranks to the higher positions. You will never do that simply by promoting people from the ranks after they have been a considerable time in the ranks or by promoting people from the ranks after they have reached an advanced age. You must have some method by which private soldiers, who do the right thing and qualify themselves, and who really show pre-eminent qualities, can be given a special education, in special knowledge, or a special training, with the necessary grants to enable them to have the training, so that they can enter the commission ranks at an age when they are not at a disadvantage compared with others holding those ranks, and so that they have full opportunity of advancement. I subscribe fully to the principle of la carriers estouverte our talents, I cannot conceive that there is any more valuable principle in our present state of society than that which offers the means by which men can advance in every walk of life and every profession from the most humble beginnings to the highest positions.
I claim that in the Army, and to a lesser extent perhaps in the Navy, it has existed in particular cases. What we require to do is to systematise the method of promotion, so that if properly qualified men coming from the ranks may get their promotion at an age when the prizes of an honourable profession will be within their grasp. But at the present time we are ill-circumstanced for promoting officers. We have a great surplus of officers—one numbering over 4,000—and we have 3,000 who have done good service in the War, and are applying for permanent commis-
sions. They are men, many of them, who got their promotion on the field. It is impossible to make promise of larger promotion at the present time. You must have some trickle from Sandhurst and Woolwich; otherwise, those institutions cannot go on. You cannot have a period of four or five years when absolutely no young officers are coming in, and I am bound, therefore, to keep those establishments going, but steps have been taken as a result of which there is now but a trickle from them. The officers seeking permanent commissions are mostly war-hardened men who want a captaincy or a majority. All I. can say is that there ought to be a certain minimum proportion of new commissions from the ranks each year. That should be treated as a regular system; there should be a course which they may apply to go through, and be allowed if recommended to attempt, but it is a course to which many may be called and but few chosen. More go to college than get through it, but still the course should be such as would enable a man who fitted himself in every respect to enter the commissioned rank on equal terms with those there. I pledge myself to see that that element is not lacking in our new Army scheme.
Then my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party, who is not in his place at the moment, raised the question of an amnesty for prisoners, and that question was also raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J Lawson) in a maiden speech. I took the trouble to make a considered answer on the subject the other day. I went into it in full detail. I do not think there is any subject on which the War Office has a better case. In Oriental lands the accession of a Sovereign on the conclusion of a victorious peace are usually celebrated by a general gaol delivery, but then one must imagine that in those countries people are locked up unjustly.

Captain BENN: As in Ireland!

Mr. CHURCHILL: The conclusion of a just and durable peace in Ireland might be signalised in some such manner as that. But, broadly speaking, it may be said that under the British Military Code persons who are undergoing long sentences have committed serious crimes which are the subject of just reprehension. The Suspension of Sentences Act has, I believe,
proved the most merciful Act ever passed. Under it 20,000 men, sentenced for all sorts of lesser crimes, never served any term of imprisonment at all. They were duly tried by court-martial and sentenced, but were then allowed to join their comrades in the line. In all the other cases, as the men have been demobilised the suspended sentence of five years or three years has passed away, and now has no existence. That really covers the overwhelming majority of the men who have, as civilians, committed purely military offences in the War. They have gone. There remains on our hands a certain number. Four hundred and forty-five military prisoners are in penal servitude at the present time. Considering that we had 5,000,000 men fighting all over the world, I think the number will astonish the Committee by its smallness. These cases include all the gravest crimes—murder, rape, unnatural offences, mutiny of the worst kind, the grossest form of desertion in the face of the enemy at moments when death would have been the penalty had not clemency intervened; striking superiors, felonious attempts to kill, offences against the civil population, and so on—nearly all are very grave counts.

Mr. WATERSON: How many crimes have been perpetrated in North Russia out of these 445?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I could classify them. I am speaking of military prisoners. There was a case of a battalion of Marines which had trouble in North Russia, which does not come under the War Office. There may be certain cases, but, so far as the Army is concerned, the number is quite inconsiderable. These 445 sentences have all been revised a first time, and 198 are being reviewed the second time. This process of revision has been continued since I came into office. I know about this by having been at the Home Office for two or three years, and I took a great personal interest in the revision of sentences which so often appear to be disproportionate to the offences. I ordered the review to be undertaken in the sense of getting rid of prisoners and getting the sentences down—I do not mind saying so. The cases have been examined very carefully, and out of 445 there have been forty complete revisions and a number of very substantial reductions. One hundred and ninety-eight are being re viewed for the second time, and, as I told the House before, out of 1,600 years' aggre-
gate sentences, 1,200 years approximately have been remitted. That is the proportion we intend to maintain over the whole of the rest of the 445 as the period of revision comes round, as it will, in the course of a few months. I am quite ready to lay before the House a return of the men wilts are held in penal servitude at the present time. I think that, instead of pursuing a sort of haphazard system of universal amnesty, irrespective of offences of any kind—whether they were disgraceful or criminal or not—we have pursued continuously a policy of merciful and carefully considered revision and clemency. I believe that, so far from there being languishing captives, sentenced under the cruel circumstances of war and left forgotten in their gaols in great numbers all over the country, everyone who has studied the question will be astonished to know to what minute dimensions a wise and humane policy, steadily pursued, has reduced the military population of our convict prisons.
The hon. Member who leads the Labour party inveighed against the £405,000,000, which he said were spent in keeping up time Army in time of peace. I have been through that so many times with the full assent of the House that I really wonder that he thought it worth while to repeat the old exploded arguments here to-night. The £405,000,000 in the Estimates are not required for keeping up the British Army, but for demobilising the British Army. £73,000,000 of it alone are paid in gratuities. What is the use of saying, "You are behindhand with the payment of war gratuities. See what ungenerous gratuities you have given to these men. Cannot you manage to include that class of poor men in your gratuities?" And then turn round and brush aside the gigantic item of £73,000,000 for the payment of gratuities and say, "Reckless Ministerial extravagance! £405,000,000 spent on keeping up an Army in time of peace!" That is a typical instance of the kind of criticism to which we are subjected. I say we have done extremely well, better than any other country in the world. We have reduced the Army from its great scale of between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 to less than 500,000 at present and to somewhat less than 300,000 by 31st March. We have brought these men home from all parts of the world at the rate of something like 10,000 a day into civil life, and nine out of every ten of them are at work in productive
employment It is no use under-rating the great achievements of Britain, which were secured not only in the field of war but in the administrative field, which we have secured not only during the War but in the great process of resettlement which has followed the War. I am not in the least penitent. I have been represented as a complete reverter to Jingoism and reaction—conscription, extravagance and Russian intervention. As a matter of fact, the circumstances are entirely the contrary. The course of events for which I have been responsible has been to rectify, as far as possible, all these evils. In regard to conscription, I have been responsible during the currency of this year for leading this country away from conscription alone amongst the nations of Europe, and by 30th April this country will be free from conscription, when Japan. America, France, Italy and Belgium, to say nothing of the smaller States, will all have compulsory military service. At any rate, I have been responsible for that.

Mr. LAWSON: That is what we fought for, is it not?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member cannot make a better interruption than that! I feel the responsibility of it, because it seems to me that there may well come a day when it will be said that very unwise things were done in the period that followed the War under the precipitate impulsion of weak minds and clamorous newspapers. It may well have been that a better national system and a more truly democratic system of military establishments could have been erected during this period when these topics were so well apprehended in all parts of the country. However, the measures which have been desired are being carried out. So far from being a conscriptionist War Minister I am the only anti-conscriptionist War Minister in Europe. As to the extravagance I claim to have found Army Estimates far above £1,000,000,000, and to have reduced them through an interim stage to £400,000,000 down to considerably under £100,000,000. The Air Estimates have been reduced from £370,000,000 dawn through the phase of £54,000,000 to something like £15,000,000. Whatever you may say, the tendencies are clearly in the direction you wish, and it is very wrong to reproach me, or, at any rate, to deny me my meed of praise for a series of transactions entirely agreeable to your views.
Last of all, I come to Russia. The Leader of the Labour party, who made a considerable attack on me, and has not been able to stay to hear my respectful and courteous reply to the many questions he addressed to me, said I was more responsible than anybody else for Russia. When the decision which carried us into Russia was taken I was not a member of the Cabinet nor had I anything to do with military politics. I inherited the position, and I frankly say that my feelings, my convictions on the subject have grown since I have studied it and acquired knowledge about it. When I went to the War Office I had a very indifferent knowledge of the subject of Russia and no strong or vehement convictions such as I have now as to what it is right and wise for the country to do. When I went to the War Office I found 40,000 British troops in Russia, and my guilt has consisted in reducing these 40,000 troops to something less than 2,000. The reduction of the force in Russia has been continuous throughout the whole year, and we have now fewer troops in Russia than the French or the Americans or, I need scarcely say, the Japanese. You may say I have been responsible for the evacuation of Russia. It is quite true—I make no secret or concealment of it—that I think the policy pursued by the Great Allied Nations in regard to Russia is one which may well be called in question at some future date. Of course, one had to act in a great Alliance, and any military measures which I have taken in regard to Russia have been taken as the result of the decisions of the Supreme Council. Either in the one sense or in the other they have been taken as the result of these decisions. History unfolds its pages with startling rapidity on the morrow of a great war and the years immediately following the war. During the whole of this year the power of the Bolshevik armies has been sustained by the exertions of Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin. These two armies, made up wholly of Russians, without any Allies to help them, and with only the weapons put into their hands, have during the whole of this year taken the whole brunt of this tremendous thing in Bolshevik Russia, letting the little States grow up in peace; Poland to consolidate itself, and Finland to remain inert; but it may well be that these Russian forces will be destroyed, that the troops will be swept away and vanish altogether, and that as a consequence the
whole of the Bolshevik military power will be available to strike down the Baltic States, to assail or menace Poland, to menace Finland, which is now in a state of alarm, to push on to Persia up to Bokhara, up to the very frontiers of India, disturbing the whole of Central Asia. If the day should dawn when these Russian forces which have hitherto borne the whole brunt of the Bolshevik attacks are destroyed, you will realise the blunt, indisputable truth—that we have not been fighting the battles of Koltchak and Denikin, but that they have been fighting ours.

Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order. May I be permitted to ask the Secretary of State for War to reply to one question?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member must await his turn.

11.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Owing to a fortuitous combination of functions the right hon. Gentleman has been subjected to a very long bombardment of questions already, but, in view of the fact that the Air Debate lasted well into the dinner hour, I am sure that he will forgive one or two of us if we refer to some details of administration which so far have not been raised. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech just now announced that the Treasury had come to a satisfactory arrangement under which lieut.-generals and major-generals would be allowed to retire before their full term of service. This will do something to prevent an undue block in promotion in the higher ranks. Many of us are anxious to know what he is doing in the same direction farther down in the scale. He has just told us that there are 3.000 temporary officers who wish to become permanent officers in the Army. You will not be able to deal with all these men who have won their way in the Army unless something can be done to ensure them a career if they join the Regular Army. What system is being adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in our peacetime Army to grade officers according to their war record? There is a great deal of discontent at the prospects of officers who have made good in the War. Some of this discontent is inevitable. It has happened after every war, owing to the monotony of peace-time soldiering after the excitement of war, but a great deal of this discontent is because of the poor prospects of advancement. I
understand that a large number of young officers are proposing to leave the Army for other careers because they do not feel, if they go on longer, that they will have much chance of getting on.
That is absolutely disastrous to the efficiency of the Army. We have got to have only a very small Army. Therefore it is imperative that it should be an Army capable of expansion. That demands the very highest qualities of brains and intellect among those who direct the Regular Forces. Unfortunately the Regular Army has paid a very terrible price during the War in the early stages, and we have got to see that the Army does not suffer from the survival of the unfit. In active service conditions the Army has gradually become graded out according to efficiency. What is being done to continue that grading, to take advantage of it in the peace? We have never had such a chance before. During five years of war everyone who wanted to make good has had his chance of showing what he could do in active service conditions, and yet we find, if we take any regiment in the Army, that the regimental promotion is being badly blocked by senior officers. Many battalions have lately been put under the command of men with very little war service indeed, men who attained no distinction in the 11.0 P.M. War, and did most of their service in the last five years at, home. Possibly it was due to physical unfitness; it cannot have been their fault. But they have dropped behind in the race. If we are to keep the good men, we have to eliminate those who did not stand the test of war. It is the same with the majors' list. The top is glutted in the same way by men who spent practically the whole of this fertile time of military education in home depots or with Reserve battalions, whereas at the bottom of the list are large numbers of men who won through at a great rate to promotion, but now are hung up with no possibility of getting on unless some change is made in the system.
Another fact is that the recent amendments to the Royal Warrant have so improved the rates of pay and of retired pay as to be a great encouragement to officers to stay on in the Army as long as they can. I welcome these improved conditions, but, unfortunately, they aggravate the difficulty by blocking promotion. Take retired pay. The new combination of
rank and service elements will mean that every year an officer is able to stay on will very materially improve his financial position when he retires. If this system is left unregulated by more stringent selection, it is certain that the congestion at the top of regimental soldiering will reach a dangerous condition. At the same time, owing to these new rates of retired pay, it is much easier for the right hon. Gentleman than it was before to get rid of these officers who are of such an age or such military efficiency that you cannot hope to get any value out of them in a future war. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, realises this. He gave an answer earlier in the Session that undoubtedly emergency facilities should be offered to officers of senior rank to retire in order to clear the way for necessary promotion which should follow from the War. He has told us to-night that he has dealt with major-generals and lieut.-generals, but I want to know whether he has done anything lower down. It is an old controversy. It was waged before Lord Wolseley succeeded the Duke of Cambridge. Lord Wolseley did very much to change the system. We want to go a great deal further. The German Army was always based on very strict selection, whereas the British Army has gone on the system that unless there was something definitely against a man he must go on being pushed up until he retires on account of age. The Selection Committee now deals only with appointments clown to commanding officers. That Committee must go by confidential reports, because it cannot possibly hope to know all the officers personally. Cannot the system of selection be carried further down? In view of the national tendency to treat generously people who have, perhaps, not been as efficient as they might have been, and a very natural trade union spirit in the Army to help the lame dog up the hill, I think the right hon. Gentleman should definitely lay it down to those responsible for selection that they must give much more weight than hitherto to war records. We cannot possibly leave this for solution until the post-war Army takes its final shape, because the appointments made from day to day will have a very great effect for many years to come on the efficiency of the units to which these senior officers are being appointed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to say a few words in explanation of what he is doing in the
matter and what system of selection he is proposing to adopt. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman this is a matter in which there is not only considerable interest taken by the general public, but a very large amount of interest by the junior ranks of the Regular Army.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I desire to refer to a matter to which I attach very great importance. I was very glad, as was I think every Member, to hear the Secretary of State for War say that the Government intended definitely to set up an Imperial General Staff. That is extremely gratifying news, because I think it is really the first attempt in our history to make a definite and, I hope, satisfactory attempt to co-ordinate the work of Imperial Defence. In this connection there are one or two matters I would like to point out. First of all, I think it is essential that we should get to work as soon as possible. I know it is a thing that cannot be done in a week or a month. The right hon. Gentleman said something about conversations taking place with regard to this matter. I hope those conversations will be as short as possible. He talked about informal conferences of the Chiefs of the Imperial General Staff with the Air Staff and the First Sea Lord.
Before the War we had informal conferences between the Army and the Admiralty, but they were productive of nothing, and I venture to suggest informal conferences of this sort will be productive of nothing in the future. What we want is a regular Advisory Committee in session in order to do any good, and that Advisory Committee or whatever it is called should be separated entirely from the three Ministries and in a different building quite apart from them. The right hon. Gentleman said each of the three Departments must have its Chief of Staff. Naturally so, for just as the Commander-in-Chief in France must have his Chiefs of Staff so must the Secretary of State for War, and the Air Minister and the First Lord have their Chiefs of Staff. That does not interfere with the scheme in any sort of way. There was one matter the right hon. Gentleman mentioned which I did not understand. He said that the Air Estimates were very difficult to reach and to ascertain, because there was nothing to go on, and he said that the Army Estimates were comparatively simple because you could go back to the pre-war scale.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I said the organisation of the Air Force was particularly difficult because they were not like the Army or Navy, able to fall back on a great structure and a great pre-war organisation, and that they had only an emergency war-time organisation and had to rebuild everything from the beginning.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I was under the impression that the idea was to go back to the old standard and work up. The important thing is to find out what the requirements are and not base them on what money we have got and try to economise. To my mind the most important thing on the question of Army Estimates or of any other Estimates, and especially next year's Estimates, is to get unity of direction and avoid plunging in a morass of departmentalism, as we have been inclined to do before the War.

Sir N. MOORE: I am thoroughly in accord in regard to what the last speaker said about the Imperial General Staff, and I hope it will be carried out at an early date. One point raised by him that should give us cause for thought was the question of the alternative to this reduction. We are abolishing Conscription, we have got no other policy, and the Leader of the Labour party and ail of us are in favour of increased pay, but at the same time we must have some alternative to the Army, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the question of what should be done in the way of compulsory training for the youth growing up. It is purely a democratic matter which should receive the attention of this House. We know, as far as Australia is concerned, that they have a measure for compulsory training which was formulated by the Labour party under Mr. Deakin, and given effect to and carried by the votes of the Labour party, and it is essential that we in the near future shall see to it that some such arrangement is made here. I know it is not too popular, because it savours too much of Conscription, but it is beneficial not only to the country but to the growing youth that they should have some physical training. They cannot have it at a better time than when as wage earners and wealth producers they can do it at less cost to the State. In regard to the question of promotion from the ranks, so far as this War is concerned, this Army has been the most democratic Army that could have been conceived, and
numerous instances have been given where men have risen from the ranks to the highest positions. My own knowledge of the Australian Force includes that of a man rising from the ranks to the post of Brigadier-General. I had the honour to enlist in the ranks myself, and I know that a man who has the opportunity of going through the ranks obtains experience which is of very great value to him when he obtains a higher position. Several complaints have been made in regard to the time occupied before answers have been received, but I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Secretary of State for War on the very able Parliamentary Secretaries he has had. My experience has been that any communications that have been addressed have received prompt replies, not only from the Gentleman occupying the position at the present time, but from those who have preceded him. There is an item of £325,000 in connection with the Dominions, Vote A, and I should like some information on that matter as I cannot conceive in what way that can be expended. There is another matter that I should have liked to have heard the right hon. Gentleman say something about, and that is with regard to his policy so far as the Territorial Force is concerned. You must have something to take the place of the present Army, and every consideration and every encouragement should be given to those people who are prepared to devote their time and holidays to become efficient in order, when the occasion arises, to defend their native country. It is one of the primary duties of citizenship, and I think the House ought to do all it possibly can for these people who have taken an interest in Territorial training. We know what we owe to the Territorial Force in the recent War, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, while cutting down in all directions, will recognise the claims of those who are interested in Territorial training and do a little to encourage them.

Captain R. TERRELL: The Secretary of State for War referred to the question of the officers of the post-war Army and referred to Special Reserve officers. I would like to ask him to clear up one question. He mentioned the young fellows who are passing through Woolwich and Sandhurst. May I ask him if he in tends to give preference to Special Reserve officers who have served during the War
over the young fellows who are now going through Sandhurst and Woolwich in the post-war Army?

Major GLYN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, during the Recess, before he introduces the new Estimates—rather than now, by one of his brilliant and provocative replies—will issue a full statement of education policy with regard to the Army? I know that matter has had the practical attention of the Secretary of State, and I know that a good deal of work has been expended on it. I would urge that the details of the scheme should be issued, because we wish to encourage the belief in the mind of everybody that by joining the Army he will not only be doing his duty to his country but will obtain an education second to none. There is one other point. As the sum down for General Headquarters Home Forces is so large, I suppose we can assume that it is a temporary matter, and will form part and parcel of the reconstruction scheme of the post-war Army.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is proposed that General Headquarters' Forces in Great Britain shall terminate on 31st January, and the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Great Britain will lapse as from 31st January. It is not settled in what form the inspectorate will be revived. With regard to the education scheme, I will find out in what state of preparation the publication is. I see no reason why it should not be laid before Parliament. If it cannot be done during the Recess, I will undertake that it shall be laid before the Army Estimates are presented. In regard to the question of Sandhurst Cadets, the officers who have served in France in nine cases out of ten are not seeking commissions as second-lieutenants, but as lieutenants and captains. They are very hard to provide for. On the other hand, you must keep the training going, and a certain flow of the officers coming up as second-lieutenants; therefore there will be a certain number of commissions given from Sandhurst and Woolwich during the next forty years. These will have a certain priority. As to the Territorial Force, it has been decided to reconstruct that Force broadly as before the War, subject to modern developments and improvements. The plans are very far advanced. I am certain that before Parliament resumes, recruiting will have been actively commenced.
I had hoped to have made further progress but we have been delayed by the delay in coming to a decision as to the general scale of the Army. This has naturally made it impossible for us to say exactly what part the Territorial Force would play or could be made to play in re-organisation.

Mr. SEDDON: The question of Russia has been raised frequently. As historical knowledge, however, I seek to know as to whether or not it is the fact that our troops went to Russia at the request of the Russian Government. Secondly, was that request acceded to with the consent of Mr. Kerensky, who was then in charge of the fortunes of the Russian nation? If so, what is the position to-day. Is the charge that it is not right to send troops to Russia correct? And is that because Lenin and Trotsky are in power, and Kerensky out of power?

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that the very important question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington that of national training for the men of the country is being taken into consideration, and that he will tell us something when he next speaks after the Recess?

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything as to the pensions of general, major-generals and lieut.-generals?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am trying to deal with the whole problem, but I think we must find out more carefully the War service of these gallant officers who were in command. I quite agree that that should be not only the main but almost the sole factor to be considered. It is difficult to apply the principle. The Treasury would be deeply concerned if these officers were to be allowed to retire on a pension in advance of their having earned it. I would like to have more time to consider my reply on that most important subject. When I ventured earlier in the Session to talk about the organisation of the post-war Army I was met with the reply, "We thought the League of Nations had decided to stop all war." I think some of the speeches which have been made today indicate a return to sanity on this question on the part of hon. Members even in a most unexpected quarter of the House.
The hon. Member for Leith (Captain Benn) made an interesting speech on lethal and carnal weapons of warfare, but I am not encouraged even with the newly developed jingo opinions of hon. Members opposite to embark upon a scheme of National Service until we have had more opportunities of discussing it and examining it, as will be the case before the Estimates are presented, nor am I prepared to embark into a discussion of the historical circumstances under which our troops went, nor the authority upon which they were invited, into those inauspicious and inhospitable regions in Russia.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY.— [12th December.]

Resolutions reported.

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

1. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £195,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of maintaining certain Harbours under the Ministry of Transport and for grants for Harbours.
2. That a sum, not exceeding £1,110,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet Expenditure in respect of refunds of excess cost of conveyance by Coastwise Transport over transport by Rail and of Dock Congestion Relief.
3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £294,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920. for Compensation to Canal Companies and Canal Carriers in the United Kingdom arising out of Government Control and for Advances to Crinan and Caledonian Canals.
4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet Expenditure arising from the Government Control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871."

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in. the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the
year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, the sum of £213,526,824 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.(—(Provision of Further Money for Purposes of 4 and 5 Geo. 5. c. 37.)

In addition to the sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund under the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Act, 1914, for the purposes of acquiring share or loan capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited, the Treasury may, as and when they think fit, issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof such further sums, not exceeding in the whole two million and fifty thousand pounds, as may be required for the said purpose.

The CHAIRMAN: I have a manuscript Amendment, tendered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson), proposing to deal with the question raised on the Second Reading, namely, the conditions of employment of men in the shale mines in Midlothian, West Lothian, and the county of Lanark. That is quite outside the scope of the Bill, and cannot be dealt with on the Committee stage.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether this Clause will give to time Government power of control over the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and put them in a position to control the administration of that company, and, if they wish, to insist upon the continuation of the Scottish shale mines, and lay down the conditions of employment in those mines?

The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Clause.

Sir J. HOPE: All I wish to know is whether it will give the Government power to do all that they want?

The CHAIRMAN: The question does not arise here, through it was quite right to raise it on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir J HOPE: We are granting these millions. Cannot I ask what return we are going to get?

The CHAIRMAN: I think it will be competent for the hon. Member to do that on the Third Reading, but not on the Committee stage. This is purely the machinery.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clauses 2 (Power for Treasury to Raise Money), 3 (Payment into Exchequer and Application of Dividends on Capital Acquired,) and 4 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 2—(Amendment of Section 13 of 4 and 5 Geo. 5, c 57.)

Notwithstanding the increase in the rate of unemployment benefit effected by this Act the expression "unemployment benefit under the principal Act" in Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the National Insurance (Part II. Unemployment) Act, 1914 (which limits the power to make or continue arrangements with associations under Section one hundred and five of the National Insurance Act, 1911) shall, during the period ending on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, be construed as meaning unemployment benefit at the rate payable before the commencement of this Act.
Lords Amendment: After the word "expression" ["by this Act the expression"], insert the words "which is at least one-third greater than the provision represented by.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Wardle.]

Mr. HOGGE: Will my hon. Friend explain the effect of this Amendment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): Both the Amendments on the Paper are purely drafting Amendments, their object being to ensure that the intentions of the measure are carried out.
Where a trade union has been paying unemployment benefit on the smaller scale, 7s., it has had to provide one-third of the amount. But if the benefit is raised to 11s. it will have to provide more than the 2s. 4d., and the object of this is to make it clear that it will not have to provide the additional amount until after the 31st December next year.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: After the word "meaning" insert the words
which exceeds the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable after the commencement of this Act by an amount which is not less than one-third of the provision represented by.
—Agreed to.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1919–20 be approved."—[Colonel Sanders.]

The remaining Orders were read, and. postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two minutes before Twelve o'clock.